U.S.

International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Daniel R. Pearson, Chairman

Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman
Deanna Tanner Okun
Charlotte R. Lane
Irving A. Williamson
Dean A. Pinkert

Robert A. Rogowsky
Director of Operations

Karen Laney-Cummings
Director, Office of Industries

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission
United States International Trade Commission
Washington, DC 20436
 U.S. International Trade Commission
Washington, DC 20436
www.usitc.gov

Canned Peaches, Pears, and Fruit Mixtures:

Conditions of Competition Between U.S.
and Principal Foreign Supplier Industries

Investigation No. 332-485

Publication 3972 December 2007

 This report was prepared principally by

Co-Project Leaders
Douglas Newman
[email protected]
and
Timothy P. McCarty
[email protected]

Principal Authors
Daniel Cook, Roger Corey, Brendan Lynch, and Mark Simone

Primary Reviewers
Robert Carr and Cathy Jabara

Administrative Support
Phyllis Boone and Cynthia Payne

Under the direction of

Joanna Bonarriva, Lead International Trade Analyst
and
Jonathan R. Coleman, Chief
Agriculture and Fisheries Division
CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary .................................................... ES-1

Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................... 1-1

Background and purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

Product and industry coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4

Chapter 2 Global Overview .......................................... 2-1

Trends in global production, consumption, and trade of canned fruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

Canned peach production and consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Canned peach trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
Canned pear production and consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
Canned pear trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
Canned fruit mixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11

Chapter 3 Competitive Conditions for Canned Fruit in the

U.S. Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Factors affecting canned fruit industry competitiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
Costs of production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
Raw fruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
Cans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
Other costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
Fixed costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
Market size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
Industry concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
Growing industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
Canning industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
Food distribution industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
Government involvement and trade practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
Vertical coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
Pricing and marketing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13
Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14
Summary of findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14

iii
 CONTENTS—Continued
Page

Chapter 4 The Industry in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

Structure of the industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
Exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12
Consumption trends/patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12
Supply chain and market segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13
Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15
Competitive factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17
Government programs, regulatory compliance, and trade practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17
Government programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17
Regulatory compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18
Trade practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19
Market factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19
Input costs and availability/cost structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19
Processing technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19
Product innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20
Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

Chapter 5 The Industry in China .................................... 5-1

Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Structure and organization of the industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
Exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9
Competitive factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11
Government programs, regulatory compliance, and trade practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11
Government programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11
Regulatory compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12
Trade practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12
Market factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13
Input costs and availability/cost structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13
Processing technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14
Product innovation and market promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15
Pricing and marketing regimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15
Market structure and pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16
Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18

iv
CONTENTS—Continued
Page

Chapter 6 The Industry in the European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

Production trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

Canned production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
Growing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
Structure and organization of industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
Growing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
Exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10
Competitive factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-12
Government programs and trade practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-12
Government programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-12
Trade practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16
Market factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16
Input costs and availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16
Transportation costs and distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18

Chapter 7 The Industry in Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

Structure of the industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
Growing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
Exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5
Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5
Competitive factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9
Government programs, regulatory compliance, and trade practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9
Market factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9
Input costs and availability/cost structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9
Production costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9
Canned fruit inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10
Labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10
Processing technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10
Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-11

Appendixes
A. Request letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
B. Federal Register Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
C. Summary of views of interested parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

v
 CONTENTS—Continued
Page

Figures
2.1. Canned peaches: World production, by country, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.2. Canned peaches: Share of world exports, by country, by value, 2002 and 2006 . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2.3. Canned peaches: Trade flows for major competitor countries, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
2.4. Canned peaches: Share of world imports, by country, by value, 2002 and 2006 . . . . . . . . . 2-6
2.5. Canned pears: World production, by country, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
2.6. Canned pears: Share of world exports, by country, by value, 2002 and 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
2.7. Canned pears: Trade flows for major competitor countries, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
2.8. Canned pears: Share of world imports, by country, by value, 2002 and 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
2.9. Canned fruit mixtures: World production, by country, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
2.10. Canned fruit mixtures: Share of world exports, by value, 2002 and 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
2.11. Canned fruit mixtures: Share of world imports, by value, 2002 and 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
3.1. Canned fruit: U.S. domestic market share, by type, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
3.2. Overview of U.S. canned peach and pear market structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

Tables
ES.1. Competitive position of major global canned fruit suppliers in the U.S. market . . . . . . . . . ES-2
2.1. Canned peaches: World production, by country, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.2. Canned peaches: Consumption in major world markets, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
2.3. Canned peaches: Global exports, by principal sources, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2.4. Canned peaches: Global imports, by principal markets, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
2.5. Canned pears: World production, by country, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
2.6. Canned pears: Consumption in major world markets, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
2.7. Canned pears: Global exports, by principal sources, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
2.8. Canned pears: Global imports, by principal markets, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
2.9. Canned fruit mixtures: World production, by country, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
2.10. Canned fruit mixtures: Consumption in major world markets, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
2.11. Canned fruit mixtures: Global exports, by principal sources, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
2.12. Canned fruit mixtures: Global imports, by principal markets, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
3.1. Canned peaches: Cost structures in major supplying countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.2. Canned fruit: Individual cost items in major supplying countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
3.3. Canned fruit: Ad valorem import tariffs in selected markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
3.4. Exchange rates: Units of foreign currency per U.S. dollar, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
4.1. Peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures: U.S. production volume and value, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . 4-2
4.2. Cling peaches: Trees pulled, trees planted, change in acreage, and bearing acreage,
2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
4.3. Canned peaches: U.S. imports, by principal sources, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
4.4. Canned peaches: U.S. imports, by selected countries, by market segment, 2002–06 . . . . . . 4-7
4.5. Canned pears: U.S. imports, by principal sources, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
4.6. Canned pears: U.S. imports, by selected countries, by market segment, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . 4-8
4.7. Canned fruit mixtures: U.S. imports, by principal sources, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
4.8. Canned fruit mixtures: U.S. imports, by selected countries, by market segment,
2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
4.9. Canned peaches: U.S. exports, by principal markets, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10
4.10. Canned pears: U.S. exports, by principal markets, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11
4.11. Canned fruit mixtures: U.S. exports, by principal markets, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11

vi
CONTENTS—Continued
Page

Tables—Continued
4.12. Canned peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures: U.S. domestic production, trade, and
consumption, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12
4.13. Canned peaches, canned pears, canned fruit, and fresh noncitrus fruit: U.S. per capita
consumption, 1980/81 and 2002/03–2006/07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13
4.14. Canned peaches: Sales by U.S. producers, by market segment, 2001/02 to 2005/06 . . . . . . 4-14
4.15. Canned pears: U.S. consumption, by market segment, 2002–05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15
4.16. Canned peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures: Supermarket sales, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16
4.17. Canning peaches and pears: Prices paid by processors, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16
5.1. Fresh and canned peaches: Chinese production, area harvested, yield, and deliveries to
processors, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
5.2. Fresh and canned pears: Chinese production, area harvested, yield, and deliveries
to processors, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
5.3 Canned fruit mixtures: Chinese production, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
5.4 Canned peaches: Chinese domestic production, trade, and consumption, 2002–06 . . . . . . . 5-5
5.5. Canned pears: Chinese domestic production, trade, and consumption, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . 5-6
5.6. Canned fruit mixtures: Chinese domestic production, trade, and consumption,
2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
5.7. Canned peaches: Chinese exports, by principal markets, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
5.8. Canned pears: Chinese exports, by principal markets, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
5.9. Canned fruit mixtures: Chinese exports, by principal markets, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
5.10. Canned peaches: Chinese imports, by principal sources, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9
5.11. Canned pears: Chinese imports, by principal sources, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10
5.12. Canned fruit mixtures: Chinese imports, by principal sources, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10
5.13. Fresh peaches and pears: Prices paid by Chinese processors, by location, 2007 . . . . . . . . . 5-13
5.14. Canned fruit: Cost structure of Chinese processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14
5.15. Canned fruit: Prices in selected Chinese supermarkets, September 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-17
5.16. Canned peaches: Unit value of Chinese exports to Japan and the United States,
2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-17
5.17. Canned peaches: Unit value of U.S. imports from China, by container size, 2002–06 . . . . . 5-17
5.18. Canned pears: Unit value of U.S. imports from China, by container size, 2002–06 . . . . . . . 5-18
6.1. Peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures: EU production volume, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
6.2. Peaches: Greek production volume, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
6.3. Peaches: Spanish production volume, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
6.4. Pears: Spanish production volume, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
6.5. Canned peaches: EU domestic production, trade, and consumption, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
6.6. Canned pears: EU domestic production, trade, and consumption, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
6.7. Canned fruit mixtures: EU domestic production, trade, and consumption, 2002–06 . . . . . . 6-7
6.8. Canned peaches: EU exports, by principal markets, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8
6.9. Canned pears: EU exports by principal markets, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8
6.10. Canned fruit mixtures: EU exports, by principal markets, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9
6.11. Canned peaches: EU imports, by principal sources, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10
6.12. Canned pears: EU imports, by principal sources, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11
6.13. Canned fruit mixtures: EU imports, by principal sources, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11
6.14. Fresh fruit for canning: Grower prices received, 2003–07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13
6.15. EU thresholds for canned peaches and pears, by member state, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-14

vii
 CONTENTS—Continued
Page

Tables—Continued
6.16. Canned peaches: Production costs in Greece and Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-17
7.1. Peaches and pears: Thai production, imports, and exports, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3
7.2. Canned peaches: Thai exports, by principal markets, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6
7.3. Canned pears: Thai exports, by principal markets, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6
7.4. Canned fruit mixtures: Thai exports, by principal markets, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
7.5. Canned peaches: Thai imports, by principal sources, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
7.6. Canned pears: Thai imports, by principal sources, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8
7.7. Canned fruit mixtures: Thai imports, by principal sources, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8
7.8. Canned peaches: Thai production costs, by category, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10

viii
Executive Summary
This report examines the competitive conditions between U.S. and principal foreign supplier
industries for canned peaches, canned pears, and canned fruit mixtures (canned fruit). The
report covers the period 2002–06 and provides 1) information on the industries in major
supplier countries, including the United States, the European Union (EU) (focusing on
Greece and Spain), China, and Thailand; 2) global trade patterns; 3) trade practices,
government programs, and measures; and 4) strengths and weaknesses of the major global
suppliers. The report was prepared in response to a request from the House Committee on
Ways and Means.

Recent trends in the U.S. market include a decline in domestic output and consumption, a
decreasing share of domestic consumption supplied by the domestic industry, and a
corresponding rise in the level of imports. The U.S. industry’s share of the domestic market
for canned peaches fell from 88 percent in 2002 to 82 percent in 2006. The share for canned
pears fell from 94 percent to 84 percent during the period. And the share for canned fruit
mixtures fell from 98 percent to 93 percent. This study uses market share as the central
indicator of competitiveness, and by this measure, the competitiveness of the U.S. canned
peach, pear, and fruit mixture industries declined during 2002–06.

The U.S. canned fruit sector is complex. U.S. and foreign fruit canners produce two types
of products—traditional products such as fruit in cans and newer products, such as fruit in
plastic jars and cups. These products are sold to retail outlets, such as supermarkets and
convenience stores, to institutional outlets, such as schools, hospitals, and correctional
facilities, and to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. U.S. canners compete with foreign
suppliers in both product types and across all domestic sales outlets. A summary of the
competitive position of the U.S. canned fruit industries vis-à-vis major competitors is
provided in table ES-1.

The report identifies four principal reasons why U.S. suppliers have lost market share to
imports during 2002–06:

• The U.S. industries did not sufficiently increase their production capacity to meet
rising demand for newer forms of packaging, such as plastic cups and jars, during
2002–06. A shift in U.S. market preferences to this type of packaging benefitted
foreign suppliers, who increased their share of these market segments.

• Increased market power by wholesale and retail buyers, owing to consolidation in the
distribution chain, coupled with increasing use of private label packs, supplied mainly
by imports, further eroded the domestic market share of the U.S. canned fruit
industries.

• Foreign suppliers, particularly Thailand and China, use facilities that produce a
variety of canned food products, which spreads fixed costs across more products and
lengthens production cycles, thus lowering their unit costs. Some of these suppliers
have also established supply relationships with U.S. firms.

• Lower input costs, mainly for raw fruit and labor, in both established and emerging
competitor supplier countries have lowered prices and contributed to a rise in the
import share of the U.S. market.

ES-1
Table ES.1 Competitive position of major global canned fruit suppliers in the U.S. market
Market
Product segment Source Competitive position
Canned Retail United States Losing market share. Imports are capturing most of the growth in
peaches plastic cups and jars.
EU Not a major competitor in this segment.
China Gaining market share, mainly in plastic cups and jars.
Thailand Gaining market share, mainly in plastic cups and jars.
Institutional United States Maintaining market share, mainly in metal cans.
EU Traditionally strong in this segment. Varying market share during
2002–06 owing to weather conditions in Greece affecting supplies.
China Gaining market share, mainly lower quality irregular slices and
dices.
Thailand Not a major competitor in this segment.
Canned Retail United States Losing market share. Imports are capturing most of the growth in
pears plastic cups and jars.
EU Not a major competitor in this segment.
China Gaining market share, both in metal cans marketed mainly to
dollar stores and in plastic cups and jars. Mainly supplier of low
cost snow pears.
Thailand Gaining market share, mainly in plastic cups and jars.
Institutional United States Losing market share, mainly to imports from China.
EU Not a major competitor in this segment.
China Gaining market share. Mainly supplier of low cost snow pears.
Thailand Not a major competitor in this segment.
Canned fruit Retail United States Losing market share. Imports are capturing most of the growth in
mixtures plastic cups and jars.
EU Not a major competitor in this segment.
China Gaining market share, mainly in plastic cups and jars.
Thailand Gaining market share, mainly in plastic cups and jars.
Institutional United States Maintaining market share, mainly in metal cans.
EU Not a major competitor in this segment.
China Gaining market share, mainly in metal cans.
Thailand Not a major competitor in this segment.
Source: USITC staff analysis based on the data and information contained in this report.

In addition, the report identifies the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the U.S.
canned fruit industries and its major competitors, as summarized below.

United States

The competitive advantages of the U.S. canned fruit industries include abundant raw
materials, the use of current technology, the large scale of growers and processors (although
operating at less than full capacity), proximity to a large domestic market, quality
infrastructure and distribution networks, and strong brand recognition in retail markets. The
U.S. industries are disadvantaged by relatively high and rising costs, a shift in demand
toward newer products and packaging and away from the more traditional products that
comprise the bulk of U.S. production, and consolidation in the distribution chain.

ES-2
China

China’s competitive advantages in the global canned fruit market include relatively low labor
and fresh fruit input costs, a large potential domestic market, proximity to its major Asian
markets, and a favorable exchange rate vis-à-vis major export markets. Disadvantages
include rising costs, limited supplies of preferred fruit varieties for processing, a small scale,
fragmented industry structure, a lack of mechanization, and a lack of recognized brands.

EU

The EU’s competitive advantages in the global canned fruit market include large and well
established growing and processing sectors, government support programs for growers, a
large domestic market, quality infrastructure, and proximity to major European and North
American export markets. Competitive disadvantages include relatively high and rising input
costs and uncertainty regarding impending Common Agricultural Policy reforms and their
impact on the supply of raw materials.

Thailand

Thailand’s competitive advantages in the canned fruit market include relatively low costs,
the use of imported canned fruit as an input in repackaged consumer size containers,
enabling year round production, experience and ability as a food processor and exporter, the
use of current technology, and strong brand recognition and familiarity with the U.S. market
and infrastructure of Dole Food Company. The primary competitive disadvantage is the
distance to major markets.

ES-3
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Background and Purpose
The United States is an important participant in the global market for canned peaches,
canned pears, and certain types of canned mixed fruit.1 In 2006, the United States was the
world’s largest single country producer of canned peaches, with production of
302,400 metric tons accounting for 23 percent of global production.2 The United States is
the world’s leading producer of canned pears and canned mixed fruit, with production of
192,000 mt and 252,000 mt, respectively, accounting for approximately one half of global
production of the two categories in 2006.3 The United States is also both an importer and
exporter of each of these products. In 2006, U.S. imports of canned peaches were valued at
$62.3 million, nearly 18 percent of global imports, while U.S. exports, valued at
$21.7 million, represented about 5 percent of global exports.4 The U.S. share of global
canned pear trade is slightly larger, with 2006 imports of $21.2 million and exports of
$11.7 million accounting for 24 and 13 percent, respectively, of world totals.

The U.S. canned fruit industries5 depend mostly on the domestic market for sales revenues
and profitability. In 2006, exports accounted for just 8 percent of U.S. domestic production
of canned peaches (by volume). However, industry representatives note that certain global
trends are having a significant impact on the U.S. canned fruit industries, particularly the
recent rise in U.S. imports from newer, lower cost global suppliers.6 Historically, imports
accounted for a small share of domestic consumption,7 but in recent years that share has been
growing, reaching 18 percent of U.S. consumption in 2006. Several foreign suppliers, such
as China and Thailand, now produce large volumes of high quality products sold at highly
competitive prices in many global markets including the United States.

Certain indicators show the challenges currently facing the U.S. industry. For example,
between 2002 and 2006, U.S. cling peach bearing acreage declined by 13 percent and the
number of newly planted trees8 fell by 64 percent.9 During this period, U.S. canned peach
sales in the retail market segment fell 11 percent and canned peach tonnage delivered to
processors declined by 36 percent.10 Production volumes of canned fruit mixtures fell by

1
For purposes of this report, the term ‘canned’ refers to several types of airtight containers, including
metal cans, glass and plastic jars, and plastic individual serving size cups, in which prepared or preserved
fruit is sold. See chapter 4 for a timeline of the introduction of various container types used for canned fruit.
2
Commission staff estimate, see table 2.1.
3
Ibid., see tables 2.5 and 2.9.
4
GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.
5
For purpose of this report, the term ‘canned fruit industries’ is defined as those industries that produce
canned peaches, canned pears, and canned mixtures of peaches and pears.
6
U.S. industry representatives, interviews with Commission staff, Sacramento, CA, and Washington, DC,
January–May, 2007.
7
USDA, FAS, Canned Fruit Situation in Selected Countries, January 2006.
8
Trees three years old or younger.
9
Industry official, information provided by the California Canning Peach Association in response to
Commission staff interviews, January–February 2007.
10
Ibid.

1-1
 21 percent during the same period.11 In contrast, U.S. imports of canned peaches, pears, and
mixed fruit together increased 41 percent by volume and 92 percent by value during
2002–06.12

This report was prepared in response to a request by the House Committee on Ways and
Means (Committee) regarding competitive conditions for certain canned fruit in the U.S.
market.13 Specifically, the Committee asked that the Commission prepare a report on
competitive conditions for canned peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures, between U.S. and
principal supplier industries.14 The Committee asked that the Commission’s report provide
the following:

• an overview of the industries in the United States and major supplying

countries, including production volumes of peaches and pears for
processing, existing and newly planted acreage, processing volumes and
capacity, and consumption;

• information on U.S. and foreign suppliers of imports and exports of the

subject products, and on the U.S. market segments in which U.S. imports
are being sold;

• a description of principal trade practices and government programs and

measures affecting production of the subject products; and,

• a comparison of strengths and weaknesses of foreign supplier industries

and the U.S. industries, including such factors as industry structure, input
cost and availability, processing technology, product innovation,
government programs, exchange rates, and pricing and marketing
regimes, along with steps the respective industries are taking to increase
their competitiveness.

Product and Industry Coverage

This report covers prepared or preserved peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures classified under
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings 2008.70.20, 2008.40.00, and 2008.92.90,
respectively. The packaging for these peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures has traditionally
been airtight metal cans, but other types of airtight containers, such as plastic or glass jars
or cups, are now important in the market. For purposes of this report, the term ‘canned’ is
used to describe the subject product in airtight containers, regardless of container type. The

11
Ibid.
12
USITC Dataweb.
13
On December 12, 2006, the House Committee on Ways and Means requested that the U.S. International
Trade Commission (Commission) prepare a report under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1332(g)) that provides information on the conditions of competition between the canned peach, canned pear,
and canned fruit mixture industries in the United States and principal foreign supplier countries. A copy of
the request letter is included in appendix A and the Commission’s notice of institution of an investigation,
published in the Federal Register of February 13, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 6744-6745), is included in appendix B.
14
The Committee requested that the Commission’s report cover the period 2002–05. In an effort to
present the most current data available and to broaden the perspective to a five year time series, the
Commission’s report covers 2002–06.

1-2
 U.S. firms that produce canned peaches and canned pears also produce mixtures containing
those fruits, including the product commonly known as fruit cocktail.15 For both U.S. and
foreign suppliers, industry data on canned fruit mixtures containing peaches and pears is
much more limited than that for canned peaches and canned pears, and is presented in this
report wherever possible.16 In response to the Committee’s request, descriptions of the
canned fruit industries in the three largest supplier countries (China, the EU, and Thailand)
are discussed in this report.

Approach
A key component of this report is to assess the conditions of competition in the U.S. market
between the U.S. canned fruit industries and major foreign suppliers by comparing their
strengths and weaknesses. For the purposes of this report, the term ‘competitiveness’ refers
to the market shares held by the U.S. canned fruit industries vis-à-vis foreign competitors in
the U.S. market.17 Contributing to the trends in market shares of U.S. and foreign industries
are various economic factors, such as production costs, government programs, exchange
rates, and pricing and marketing factors. Because sufficient data do not exist, not all these
measures can be quantified, particularly for foreign industries. Therefore, market shares in
the United States, which are quantifiable, serve as a basic indicator of industry performance.

The Commission’s approach in this report emphasizes the role played by industry structure
in influencing firm conduct and industry performance or competitiveness.18 Examining
industry structure within this context can shed light on the important elements of domestic
and foreign markets that have affected U.S. market competitiveness in the past and may be
expected to do so in the future.

15
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s standard of identity for fruit cocktail requires that the product
contain diced peaches, pears, pineapples, whole grapes and cherry halves in a range of specified proportions.
21 C.F.R .§ 145.135 to 145.136 (2002).
16
Canned fruit mixtures containing peaches and pears are included under HTS items 2008.92.9030 and
2008.92.9035. Import data at this 10 digit level, disaggregated for peaches and pears, is available for the
United States only. Trade data for foreign countries is only available at the 6 digit level, which represents
canned fruit mixtures of all types of fruit. Therefore, information on the trade patterns of canned fruit
mixtures presented in this report may include fruit mixtures that contain all types of fruits.
17
Competitiveness is usually used in reference to a nation’s economy as a whole, where it may be
measured by shares of world trade. Lawrence, “Competitiveness”, 1, and World Economic Forum,
2006–2007 Global Competitiveness Report, xiii–xv. However, the market share definition can also be
applied to particular products. This measure is readily calculated but is static – it takes competitiveness as a
zero sum game, with one country’s gain coming at others’ expense. An alternative, dynamic definition could
measure relative rates of growth in output or exports, which is not a zero sum concept (a small country could
have a faster growth rate than a large country yet suffer a declining global market share over time). World
Economic Forum, Africa Competitiveness Report 2007, 5. Other possible definitions of competitiveness
include producing at the lowest average cost or pricing at marginal cost (efficiency). Competitiveness also
can refer to improvements in the productivity of labor (leading to higher wages in a competitive market) or
capital (leading to higher profits).
18
See chapter 3 for further discussion of the Commission’s analytical approach.

1-3
 Key factors in the structure of global canned fruit industries include firm concentration in
growing, processing, and distribution, relative cost levels across countries, degree of vertical
integration, diversification into other product lines, and government support or other
involvement. In the United States, for example, the high concentration of processors versus
growers has implications for the pricing of raw fruit (the key cost element for fruit canners)
as does the presence of U.S. grower owned cooperative canning operations. However, the
availability of substitutable imported canned fruit products in the U.S. market generally
weakens the market power of domestic canners in the next marketing stage, which is sales
to distributors or retailers. Similarly, growing concentration in the retailing sector has pricing
implications for canners, regardless of the extent of import competition. The extent of import
competition, in turn, is partly determined by relative cost levels across countries, another
structural element.

For this report, analysis was based on information obtained from published sources, and
through staff interviews with company representatives, industry and trade officials,
government agency officials, and academic researchers, both in the United States and abroad.
Wherever possible, data for canned peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures were broken out
separately. Little of the information sought in this investigation has been the focus of studies
carried out by other government agencies or other institutions.

Organization
This report is divided into 7 chapters, starting with an introduction to the study (chapter 1)
that explains the study’s purpose, product and industry coverage, the analytical approach
used to examine competitive factors, and the organization of the report. Chapter 2 provides
a global overview for the three canned fruit industries by examining trends in world
production, consumption, and trade patterns. Chapter 3 addresses the competitive conditions
for canned fruit in the U.S. market, including a comparative summary of key factors
affecting competitiveness of the U.S. and foreign supplier industries, and industry
comparisons. Country profiles are presented for the United States in Chapter 4 and major
foreign supplier countries to the United States (China, the EU, and Thailand) in Chapters
5–7. Each profile covers production, structure and organization of the industry, trade,
consumption, canned fruit supply chain/marketing channels, pricing, and the key factors
affecting competitiveness for each industry. Appendices to this report contain the request
letter from the House Committee on Ways and Means (Appendix A), Federal Register
Notices (Appendix B), and summaries of views of interested parties (Appendix C).

1-4
CHAPTER 2
Global Overview
Trends in Global Production, Consumption, and Trade of
Canned Fruit
The global canned fruit market has been undergoing significant change in recent years.
Historically, the market has been characterized by 1) typical product forms (i.e., retail and
institutional size metal cans), 2) longstanding suppliers (e.g., the EU, the United States,
South Africa, Chile, Argentina, and Australia), and 3) mature, traditional markets such as
the EU, the United States, and Japan. Annual variations in production and trade flows
generally resulted from exogenous factors, typically weather conditions. In the last decade,
however, new markets, suppliers, and product forms have altered trade and consumption
patterns for canned fruits. The increasing popularity of canned fruit available in plastic and
glass jars, as well as individual serving size plastic cups, has both spurred demand for these
products in traditional, mature markets and contributed to the emergence of new suppliers
such as Thailand1 and China. In addition, weather factors in recent years have limited
supplies from traditional sources and provided an opportunity for emerging suppliers,
particularly China, to gain share in the U.S. market. Finally, the growth of demand in new
markets, such as Russia, South America, and the Middle East, has led to new export
opportunities.

This chapter provides a general overview of global production, consumption, and trade
trends for canned peaches, canned pears, and canned fruit mixtures.2 More detailed
discussion of the dynamics behind these shifts during 2002–06 for the United States, and
the main suppliers of these products to the U.S. market (China, the EU, and Thailand) can
be found in chapters 4-7 of this report.

Canned Peach Production and Consumption

World canned peach production volume decreased by approximately 10 percent during
2002–06, totaling 1.3 million metric tons (mt) in 2006 (table 2.1 and figure 2.1). The general
decline and annual fluctuations in production volume resulted mainly from consolidation
in the U.S. growing sector and from adverse weather conditions in Greece.3 Notable
developments during the period include a substantial decline in U.S. production, particularly
in 2006, and other traditional suppliers’ production as well as the concomitant rise in

1
Thailand’s industry is unique in that production is actually a remanufacturing process in which imports
of canned peaches and pears in large metal cans are repackaged into some smaller retail ready containers,
primarily individual size plastic cups and larger plastic jars for export.
2
Certain global data on trade in canned fruit mixtures are not available, as canned fruit mixtures of all
types are aggregated in global trade databases. Consequently, trade data on canned fruit mixtures of all types
are presented, and trade trends for canned peach and pear mixtures are discussed where available.
3
Extreme frost in Greece in 2003 resulted in a precipitous decline in canned peach production. The
availability of fresh peaches for canning is also affected by competition for the fruit supplies for other uses,
such as for fresh consumption, puree, or freezing.

2-1
Table 2.1 Canned peaches: World production, by country, 2002–06
Production Share of total Change (2002–06)
Share of
Country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2002 2006 Production total
Metric tons Percent
EU:
Greece 275,000 62,000 285,000 306,000 280,000 19 22 2 13
Spain 143,979 190,037 139,369 183,491 129,285 10 10 (10) 0
Italy 18,400 19,650 19,400 18,000 18,000 1 1 (2) 9
France 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 1 1 0 11
Total, EU 447,379 281,687 453,769 517,491 437,285 31 34 (2) 9
United States 472,800 427,200 441,600 403,200 302,400 33 23 (36) (29)
China 210,000 210,000 205,000 207,000 234,000 15 18 11 24
Argentina 57,600 76,800 87,840 85,440 106,800 4 8 85 106
Chile 81,235 91,200 94,800 69,600 98,400 6 8 21 35
South Africa 98,885 87,381 85,920 66,774 84,534 7 7 (15) (5)
Australia 65,479 32,244 36,260 34,729 26,846 5 2 (59) (54)
Total 1,433,379 1,206,512 1,405,189 1,384,234 1,290,265 100 100 (10) 0
Sources: 8th World Canned Deciduous Fruit Conference; USDA, FAS, GAIN Reports; USDA, FAS PS&D; industry
submissions; Commission estimates.

Figure 2.1 Canned peaches: W orld production, by country, 2002–06

Sources: 8th World Canned Deciduous Fruit Conference: USDA, FAS, GAIN Reports; USDA, FAS PS&D; industry
submissions; Commission estimates.

2-2
 supplies from nontraditional sources (mainly China and Thailand). The leading global
producers of canned peaches include the EU (mainly Greece and Spain), the United States,
and China.4 The EU and the United States are traditional suppliers of canned peaches,
although the U.S. industry ships primarily within the U.S. market.5 China’s sizeable
production is a relatively recent phenomenon, with both production and exports, particularly
of yellow peaches, growing considerably over just the past decade.6

Globally, canned peach consumption fluctuated throughout 2002–06 but declined overall,
falling to 891,167 mt in 2006, after having peaked in 2002 at 1,080,502 mt (table 2.2). The
level of canned peach consumption in major global markets varies considerably, with the
United States and the EU as the largest consumers, together accounting for more than three
quarters of world consumption in 2006. However, as mature markets, consumption has
remained relatively flat or, in the case of the United States, has fallen during the period.

Table 2.2 Canned peaches: Consumption in major world markets, 2002–06

Country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Share, 2006 Change (2002–06)
Metric tons Percent
EU 333,546 294,234 433,675 440,399 345,187 39 3
United States 517,356 424,088 443,341 418,380 340,330 38 (34)
China 165,482 133,654 139,047 131,778 145,461 16 (12)
Japan 64,118 60,332 60,218 63,583 60,189 7 (6)
Total 1,080,502 912,308 1,076,281 1,054,140 891,167 100 (18)
Sources: USDA, FAS, PS&D data; GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database; Commission estimates.

Similar to other developing countries, per capita consumption of canned fruit is currently
very low in China owing to the Chinese preference for fresh fruit, which is widely available.
However, Chinese domestic consumption has been rising in recent years and this increase
is expected to continue.

Canned Peach Trade

Over the 2002–06 period, global exports of canned peaches grew 60 percent by value
(figure 2.2).7 Traditional suppliers, such as the EU and South Africa, lost global market
share of exports, even while increasing sales values. This was largely because of the sharp
increase in the quantity of exports from China, which doubled over the period, and increased
Thai exports, which rose four fold. Although the value of U.S. exports grew by 66 percent,
mainly owing to increased exports of institutional sized cans to China and Thailand, its
share of global exports did not change during 2002–06.

4
As Thai production consists of repackaging only, its supplies are not counted in the world production
total in table 2.1.
5
During 2002–06, on average less than 10 percent of U.S. canned peach production was exported. See
table 4.12.
6
The majority of Chinese canned peach production is of white peaches destined for markets other than the
United States, where canned yellow peaches are preferred. See chapter 5 for further discussion. USDA, FAS,
Peoples Republic of China, Canned Deciduous Fruit Annual 2007, April 17, 2007, 7.
7
Analysis of trends by volume is problematic owing to inconsistent country reporting of data, however,
volume trends are not believed to differ significantly from trends in value.

2-3
Figure 2.2 Canned peaches: Share of world exports, by country, by value, 2002 and 2006

Total $251 m illion Total $401 m illion

Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

In 2006, global exports were $401 million, and 45 percent was supplied by two sources—the
EU and China (table 2.3). Greece is the largest exporter of canned peaches in the world and
the yield of the Greek fresh peach crop has a significant influence over canned prices
worldwide. While a large portion of Greek and Spanish canned peach exports are sold to
internal EU markets,8 the major markets outside the EU have traditionally been Canada,
Mexico, and the United States. However, during 2005–06, EU exports to Russia and
Thailand steadily increased and, in 2006, these two countries were the largest markets for
EU canned peaches outside of the EU (figure 2.3). Chinese canned peach exports, which are
sold mainly to Japan, more than doubled during the five year period. Exports to the United
States from China grew more than ten fold, as a result of competitive prices for Chinese
institutional size metal cans and single serving plastic cups.

Table 2.3 Canned peaches: Global exports, by principal sources, 2002–06

Source 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
1,000 U.S. dollars
EU 93,812 52,313 64,417 84,574 103,573
China 37,257 60,775 56,653 62,248 75,748
South Africa 37,816 62,535 67,069 64,210 52,502
Other 82,122 142,727 156,086 146,120 168,976
Total 251,007 318,350 344,226 357,152 400,799
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

8
Owing to a domestic preference for fresh fruit in their home markets, the majority of Greek and, to a
slightly lesser degree, Spanish production of canned peaches is exported, both within the EU and to other
global markets. This makes Greece both the largest EU producer and exporter of canned peaches.

2-4
Figure 2.3 Canned peaches: Trade flows for m ajor com petitor countries, 2006 a

Sources: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database, and Dataweb.

a
Arrow line thickness corresponds to volume of trade.

The United States is a relatively minor exporter with a 2006 world market share of
5 percent. Major U.S. export markets for canned peaches are Canada, Mexico, and Thailand,
which has become a U.S. export market just since 2002. The vast majority of U.S. exports
to Thailand are supplied in institutional size metal cans which are repackaged into plastic
jars and cups in Thailand, and then reexported back to the United States in the form of retail
ready products. Dole Food Company owns and operates canneries in Thailand that rely
almost solely on imported canned inputs to produce canned peach, pear, and mixed fruit
products.

Global imports were reported at $352 million in 2006 (table 2.4).9 In 2006, the United States
imported the largest share, approximately 18 percent of the total (figure 2.4). While Greece
and Spain have been the traditional suppliers to the U.S. market, China and Thailand have
increasingly supplied the U.S. market, most markedly since 2004 after adverse weather
severely curtailed Greek production.

9
GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database. Global import and global export values differ owing to inconsistent
country reporting of imports and exports.

2-5
Table 2.4 Canned peaches: Global imports, by principal markets, 2002–06
Market 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
1,000 U.S. dollars
United States 43,214 37,383 40,587 46,989 62,340
Japan 56,637 55,867 58,885 61,186 58,843
Mexico 37,774 42,123 45,972 37,535 43,894
Other 126,886 183,346 198,724 183,654 186,983
Total 264,511 318,719 344,168 329,354 352,060
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

Figure 2.4 Canned peaches: Share of world im ports, by country, by value, 2002 and 2006

Total $265 m illion Total $352 m illion

Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

Canned Pear Production and Consumption

Global production of canned pears fluctuated during 2002–06 (table 2.5 and figure 2.5), but
the overall trend was a slight decline in output owing mainly to the same factors that
affected the production of canned peaches (e.g., weather and grower consolidation in the
United States). Notable developments during the period included a substantial decline in
canned output by traditional suppliers, mainly the United States (during 2002–05), the EU,
South Africa, and Australia. This decline was mitigated somewhat by a rise in output from
China.

2-6
Table 2.5 Canned pears: World production, by country, 2002–06
Production Share of total Change (2002–06)
Country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2002 2006 Production Share of total
Metric tons Percent
United States 199,200 177,600 175,200 160,800 192,000 49 49 (4) 0
EU:
Italy 47,600 38,632 43,200 43,000 43,000 12 11 (10) (5)
Spain 22,624 26,950 20,754 23,579 18,431 6 5 (19) (14)
France 16,500 16,500 16,500 16,500 16,500 4 4 0 5
Greece 5,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 5,500 1 1 10 16
Total, EU 91,724 86,082 85,454 89,079 83,431 23 22 (9) (4)
China 38,000 38,000 50,000 50,000 59,000 9 15 55 63
South Africa 32,420 26,668 24,720 26,647 25,916 8 7 (20) (16)
Australia 40,375 28,309 26,847 22,148 18,430 10 5 (54) (52)
Argentina 2,880 4,560 4,800 5,040 6,000 1 2 108 119
Chile 1,812 1,920 2,880 2,400 1,920 0 0 6 11
Total 406,412 363,139 369,901 356,115 386,697 100 100 (5) 0
Source: 8th World Canned Deciduous Fruit Conference; USDA, FAS, GAIN Reports; USDA, FAS PS&D; industry
submissions; Commission estimates.

Figure 2.5 Canned pears: W orld production, by country, 2002–06

Sources: 8th World Canned Deciduous Fruit Conference: USDA, FAS, GAIN Reports; USDA, FAS PS&D; industry
submissions; Commission estimates.

2-7
 The United States is the world’s largest producer of canned pears, accounting for about one
half of the world total. Production declined sharply during 2002–05 but rebounded in 2006
to 192,000 mt for an overall decline of about 4 percent. The 2002–05 decline resulted
mainly from increased competition from imports, particularly in the institutional sector,10
while the rebound in 2006 can be attributed to U.S. producers’ anticipation of increased U.S.
institutional demand owing to lower supplies of U.S. canned peaches. China has become the
third leading global producer of canned pears, with 2006 production totaling 59,000 mt
surpassing the EU’s principal producer, Italy, in 2004. China’s growth in production of
canned pears has been driven primarily by strong export sales, as only small growth in
domestic consumption has occurred.

Canned pear consumption in major world markets is about 40 percent that of canned
peaches, and, similarly, the United States and the EU are the main consuming markets
(table 2.6). Global consumption of canned pears followed a pattern similar to that of canned
peaches, fluctuating downward slightly during 2002–06; this represents increased consumer
preferences for high quality fresh fruit that is increasingly available year round in major
markets.

Table 2.6 Canned pears: Consumption in major world markets, 2002–06

Country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Share, 2006 Change (2002–06)
Metric tons Percent
United States 206,036 191,729 191,584 172,792 212,069 61 3
EU 116,324 115,455 118,069 119,035 105,809 30 (9)
China 23,099 15,288 20,054 15,437 23,054 7 0
Japan 7,306 7,096 7,878 7,716 7,593 2 4
Total 352,765 329,568 337,585 314,980 348,525 100 (1)
Sources: USDA, FAS, PS&D data; GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database; Commission estimates.

Canned Pear Trade

In 2006, global exports of canned pears totaled almost $93 million, having grown over
70 percent since 2002 (figure 2.6), making this market about one quarter the size of that for
canned peaches. South Africa and Australia lost global market share, largely because of the
growth in exports from China and Thailand, whose exports more than tripled over the 5 year
period. The major flows of trade are to the United States and the EU (figure 2.7) from just
a few major suppliers (table 2.7). In 2006, over one half of global exports were supplied by
two countries: South Africa and China. South Africa supplied nearly 40 percent of U.S.
canned pear imports in 2002. However, during 2002–06, as imports from China and
Thailand rose considerably, South Africa’s exports to the United States fell from 4,984 mt
in 2002 to 621 mt in 2006. China’s primary export market is the United States, accounting
for nearly one-half of Chinese exports, or 21,160 mt in 2006, followed by the EU and Japan.
Beginning in 2002, China has exported increasing amounts of canned pears to Thailand.

In 2006, the United States garnered a larger market share of world canned pear exports
(13 percent) than of canned peaches (5 percent). Nearly one half of U.S. canned pear exports
were shipped to Thailand in 2006. Like canned peaches, most of these exports were destined
for repackaging and reexport to the United States. Thailand, with a global export market

10
U.S. industry representatives, interviews with Commission staff, October–November, 2007.

2-8
Figure 2.6 Canned pears: Share of world exports, by country, by value, 2002 and 2006

Total $55 m illion Total $93 m illion

Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

Figure 2.7 Canned pears: Trade flows for m ajor com petitor countries, 2006 a

Sources: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database, and Dataweb.

a
Arrow line thickness corresponds to volume of trade.

2-9
 Table 2.7 Canned pears: Global exports, by principal sources, 2002–06
Source 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
1,000 U.S. dollars
South Africa 18,034 23,224 23,230 21,890 24,131
China 7,809 11,387 15,634 18,723 23,115
Australia 14,750 17,956 13,995 15,209 13,416
Other 14,748 16,490 22,060 26,486 32,180
Total 55,341 69,056 74,920 82,308 92,842
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

share of 10 percent, exports almost all its canned pears to the United States; virtually all of
this was in the form of retail ready products. Most of the remainder of U.S. canned pear
exports were shipped to Canada and the Philippines.11

Global imports of canned pears were $88 million in 2006 (table 2.8), with the EU
(31 percent) and the United States (24 percent) together accounting for just over one half
of the total in 2006 (figure 2.8). U.S. imports were fairly stable during 2003–05, but
increased 73 percent in 2006 owing to increased supplies from China. China was the source
of 60 percent of U.S. canned pear imports in 2006, with Thailand accounting for an
additional 20 percent.

Table 2.8 Canned pears: Global imports, by principal markets, 2002–06

Market 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
1,000 U.S. dollars
EU 21,240 26,948 31,698 30,344 27,434
United States 8,029 12,192 12,538 12,283 21,219
Japan 7,211 7,282 8,529 8,270 8,419
Other 18,776 20,779 26,803 31,445 31,154
Total 55,256 67,201 79,568 82,342 88,226
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

11
Dole Food Company operates fruit canneries in the Philippines, and a large portion of the Philippine
imports of canned pears from the United States are likely used as inputs into remanufacturing operations
there.

2-10
Figure 2.8 Canned pears: Share of world im ports, by country, by value, 2002 and 2006

Total $55 m illion Total $88 m illion

Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

Canned Fruit Mixtures12

Global production of canned fruit mixtures declined irregularly during 2002–06 (table 2.9
and figure 2.9). This trend followed production levels in the United States, the leading
global producer of canned fruit mixtures. However, the U.S. share of global production
declined from nearly two thirds in 2002 to just over one half in 2006. The most significant
increases in share of global production during the period were captured by China and
Thailand, mainly driven by increased export opportunities. Global consumption of canned
fruit mixtures fluctuated downward during 2002–06 (table 2.10); it was slightly higher than
that of canned pears during 2002–06 and about one half that of canned peaches. The United
States and the EU accounted for 94 percent of global consumption in 2006.

Global exports of fruit mixtures of all types reached $347 million in 2006 (table 2.11).
Thailand was the world’s leading exporter of mixtures of all types of fruit, accounting for
about one quarter of global exports in 2006 (figure 2.10).13 The primary market for Thai
exports is the United States, which received approximately 60 percent of such exports in
2006.14 The EU and the Philippines were the second and third leading exporters shipping

12
While Commission estimates of production and consumption of canned fruit mixtures are limited to
those of peaches and pears only, data on global trade in canned fruit mixtures is only available at the 6 digit
HTS level, which is a basket category that includes fruit mixtures of all fruit types, as well as prepared cereal
products.
13
These data include Thai fruit mixtures of tropical fruits, such as pineapple, papaya, and mango, which
are not the subject of this report, but which Thailand produces in abundance.
14
Approximately 15 percent of Thai exports to the United States of canned fruits of all types were
mixtures of peaches and pears.

2-11
Table 2.9 Canned fruit mixtures: World production, by country, 2002–06
Production Share of total Change (2002–06)
Country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2002 2006 Production Share of total
Metric tons Percent
United States 319,680 291,600 304,080 273,600 252,000 61 52 (21) (16)
EU:
Italy 70,900 71,000 73,000 71,000 71,000 14 15 0 8
Greece 30,000 24,000 36,000 38,000 35,000 6 7 17 26
Spain 15,000 15,175 13,560 15,222 13,587 3 3 (9) (2)
France 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 3 3 0 8
Total, EU 130,900 125,175 137,560 139,222 134,587 25 28 3 11
Australia 42,786 43,429 59,059 53,283 44,255 8 9 3 12
China 6,000 6,000 10,000 19,000 27,000 1 6 350 386
Chile 15,251 12,480 13,200 16,200 15,600 3 3 2 10
Argentina 6,000 7,200 8,400 9,960 8,880 1 2 48 60
Total 520,617 485,884 532,299 511,265 482,322 100 100 (7) 0
Sources: 8th World Canned Deciduous Fruit Conference; USDA, FAS, GAIN Reports; USDA, FAS PS&D; industry
submissions; Commission estimates.

Figure 2.9 Canned fruit m ixtures: W orld production, by country, 2002–06

Sources: 8th World Canned Deciduous Fruit Conference; USDA, FAS, GAIN Reports; USDA, FAS PS&D; industry
submissions; Commission estimates.

2-12
Table 2.10 Canned fruit mixtures: Consumption in major world markets, 2002–06
Country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Share, 2006 Change (2002–06)
Metric tons Percent
United States 316,639 287,504 301,934 265,277 256,035 59 (19)
EU 141,462 144,264 164,077 161,977 153,131 35 8
Japan 17,094 15,980 18,066 19,515 18,933 4 11
China 3,695 2,062 3,104 3,807 8,598 2 133
Total 478,890 449,810 487,181 450,576 436,697 100 (9)
Sources: USDA, FAS, PS&D data; GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database; Commission estimates.

Table 2.11 Canned fruit mixtures: Global exports, by principal sources, 2002–06
Source 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
1,000 U.S. dollars
Thailand 57,279 61,354 74,372 83,483 87,593
EU 20,464 21,718 22,855 31,535 41,339
Philippines 33,761 21,134 22,186 30,525 37,069
Other 115,958 137,206 146,944 168,119 180,517
Total 227,462 241,413 266,356 313,662 346,517
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

Figure 2.10 Canned fruit m ixtures: Share of world exports, by value, 2002 and 2006

Total $228 m illion Total $347 m illion

Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

2-13
 mixtures of all types of fruit, mainly to Russia and the United States, respectively.15 U.S.
fruit mixtures are exported mainly to Canada.

The United States is the world’s largest importer of canned fruit mixtures of all types by
value ($126.1 million), accounting for 38 percent of such imports in 2006 (table 2.12 and
figure 2.11). In 2006, U.S. imports from Thailand and China combined increased to
$23.9 million, and accounted for approximately 60 percent of the U.S. total.16 Mexico and
Chile also emerged as new suppliers to the U.S. market in 2006 with approximately
$1 million each. The EU fell from its position as the largest U.S. source in 2002 to a less
than 2 percent share in 2006.

Table 2.12 Canned fruit mixtures: Global imports, by principal markets, 2002–06
Market 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
1,000 U.S. dollars
United States 77,374 81,279 97,265 103,886 126,108
EU 26,611 35,760 43,555 47,341 51,039
Canada 17,936 19,505 22,038 35,728 38,103
Other 93,781 102,870 111,143 118,549 125,206
Total 215,702 239,413 274,001 305,505 340,455
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

Figure 2.11 Canned fruit m ixtures: Share of world im ports, by value, 2002 and 2006

Total $216 m illion Total $341 m illion

15
EU exports to the United States of fruit mixtures containing peaches and pears accounted for only 9
percent of mixtures of all fruit types. While the United States generally receives between 50 and 60 percent
of all Philippine fruit mixture exports, those exports that were mixtures containing peaches and pears
accounted for less than 10 percent of the total.
16
Analysis of U.S. imports is based on U.S. import data at the 10 digit HTS level, which includes fruit
mixtures of peaches and pears only.

2-14
Bibliography
Conference proceedings. 8th World Canned Deciduous Fruit Conference, Sacramento, CA,
April 2007.

Global Trade Information Service, Inc. (GTIS). World Trade Atlas Database.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). (Authors: Jorge Snachez,
Wu Bugang, and Frances Wei). Peoples Republic of China, Canned Deciduous Fruit Annual 2007.
GAIN Report No. CH 5023, April 17, 2007.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Production, Supply
and Distribution Online (PSD). www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdhome.aspx (accessed various dates).

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Interactive Tariff and Trade Dataweb (Dataweb).
http://dataweb.usitc.gov (accessed various dates).

2-15
CHAPTER 3
Competitive Conditions for Canned Fruit in
the U.S. Market
Introduction
A central indicator of the U.S. canned fruit industries’ competitiveness is their share of the
three U.S. canned fruit markets. A comparison of 2002 and 2006 data shows that the shares
of the U.S. canned fruit markets supplied by domestic industries are declining and the shares
held by imports are rising (figure 3.1). For example, in 2002, U.S. pear canners supplied
about 94 percent of the domestic market and importers the remaining 6 percent. By 2006,
U.S. canners accounted for 84 percent, with the import share rising to 16 percent. A similar
trend is apparent for canned peaches (with the exception of 2002)1 and mixed fruit. By this
measure, the U.S. canned fruit industries have become less competitive in the U.S. market
vis-à-vis foreign suppliers over the past 5 years. This chapter examines the reasons behind
this loss of competitiveness.2

Key structural elements affecting competitiveness for all canned fruit industries, domestic
and foreign, include canners’ production costs (comprised chiefly of the cost of procuring
raw fruit, factory wage rates, and costs of cans and other packaging), the type of technology
used, infrastructure, proximity to markets, and product innovations.3 Government
intervention, exchange rates, and existing demand for canned fruit in their domestic markets
all have important effects on the competitiveness of global canned fruit industries.
Additional important elements affecting canned fruit industries’ competitiveness are the
degree of vertical coordination, pricing, marketing, investment, and divestment decisions.

Broadly, U.S. and foreign fruit canners produce two types of products—traditional products,
such as fruit in cans, and newer products, such as fruit in plastic containers and cups. These
products are sold to several outlets, including retail stores (such as supermarkets, box stores,
and convenience stores selling both branded and private label products), institutional outlets
(such as schools, hospitals, and correctional facilities), the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(for the school lunch program), and exporters. U.S. canners compete with foreign suppliers
in both product types and across most domestic sales outlets (figure 3.2).

1
The drop in U.S. market share in 2006 was exacerbated by unfavorable weather in the United States.
However, estimates of the 2007 harvest and U.S. imports for the first three quarters of the year indicate a
continued downward trend in U.S. supplies and a corresponding increase in import share.
2
The analysis employs an analytical framework that draws from industrial organization literature, namely
the structure-conduct-performance paradigm. This approach asserts that an industry’s performance or
competitiveness will depend on how an industry is organized and structured. Changes in the relative market
shares of the United States and of supplying countries can be traced to the structure of the U.S. canned fruit
industries, as well as to the structure and conduct of U.S. and foreign firms that serve it. Scherer and Ross,
Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, 1990.
3
These elements influencing the competitiveness of the U.S. canned fruit industries were identified based
on extensive discussions with U.S. and foreign industry participants and on a thorough review of market
reports and trade data. These factors are discussed in detail in the succeeding individual country chapters of
this report (chapters 4–7).

3-1
Figure 3.1 Canned fruit: U.S. domestic market share, by type, 2002–06

100

95
Share of total (percent)

90

85

80

75

70
Canned peaches Canned pears Canned fruit mixtures

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Source: NASS, USDA and USITC, Dataweb.

Figure 3.2 Overview of U.S. canned peach and pear market structure

Domestic Sales Outlets Imports

Exports

Traditional products
(e.g., cans)
USDA
Traditional products
(e.g., cans)
Competitive factors
Fruit cost Competitive factors
Wage rates Fruit cost
Technology Wage rates
Government programs U.S. canners Technology
Foreign canners Government programs
Infrastructure
Foreign owned Infrastructure
Proximity to market Retail – Private label U.S. owned Proximity to market
Supermarkets
Exchange rates
Box store s

Newer products Newer products

(e.g., cups) (e.g., cups)
Retail – Branded
Supermarkets
Box store s

Institutional
Food Service

Source: Compiled by Commission staff.

3-2
 The remainder of this chapter describes each of the key structural elements and conduct that
impact the canned fruit industries’ competitiveness, with emphasis on those in the major
non-U.S. suppliers that provide a clear advantage or disadvantage when compared to the
U.S. industries. The chapter concludes by summarizing the key reasons for the decreased
competitiveness of the U.S. canned fruit industries in the U.S. market.

Factors Affecting Canned Fruit Industry Competitiveness

Costs of Production
Production costs are among the most important determinants of industry profitability and
competitiveness in canned fruit trade and, in this area, the U.S. industries are generally at a
disadvantage to most foreign suppliers. Both growers’ and canners’ costs affect industry
competitiveness. Direct costs at the grower level include land (owned or leased), rootstock
for planting, water, fertilizer, pesticides and other chemicals, fuel and energy, labor for
general orchard practices (e.g., thinning and pulling trees), and for harvesting. There are also
fixed costs such as land and equipment. Unlike many agricultural field crops, deciduous tree
fruit, such as peaches and pears, incur substantial unrecovered costs for 4 to 5 years before
harvest because the trees do not start producing commercial quantities of fruit until then.
Therefore, early maintenance costs of young trees must be added (after appropriate
discounting) to the actual costs of fruit production once the trees reach fruit-bearing age.
At the cannery level, in addition to the cost of procuring the raw fruit, costs include labor,
containers (metal, glass, or plastic), water for cleaning fruit, ingredients for the packing
medium, energy, capital costs of buildings and equipment, packing, storage, disposal of
waste water and other processing wastes, inventory and marketing costs, and transport of
canned fruit to customers. As with the growing sector, there are fixed costs such as land and
equipment. Table 3.1 summarizes the cost structures in the production of canned peaches in
major canned fruit supplying countries (data from chapters 4–7):

Table 3.1 Canned peaches: Cost structures in major supplying countries

Spain Greece Thailand China United States
Cost item $/kg % $/kg % $/kg % $/kg % $/kg %
Raw fruit 0.25 27 0.21 27 0.84 48 0.27 35 0.29 31
Cans 0.20 21 0.17 22 0.31 18 0.20 25 0.23 25
Labor 0.07 7 0.07 9 0.09 5 0.08 10 0.14 15
Other 0.40 44 0.33 42 0.50 29 0.24 30 0.26 28
Total 0.91 100 0.77 100 1.74 100 0.78 100 0.93 100
Source: U.S. and foreign industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, January–September 2007.

Table 3.2 shows selected individual cost items in major canned fruit supplying countries as
of April 2007.

3-3
Table 3.2 Canned fruit: Individual cost items in major supplying countries
South United
Cost item Argentina Australia ChileGreece Africa Spain States
U.S. dollars
Field labor (per hour) 2.42 14.30 2.45 6.75 1.50 9.45 13.00
Factory labor (per hour) 3.39 17.88 3.40 10.80 3.00 13.50 20.00
Source: Data from a presentation at the 8th World Canned Deciduous Fruit Conference, Sacramento, California,
April 15–19, 2007.

These data show substantial differences in costs among global producers of canned fruits.
The following discussion provides a more detailed comparison of individual cost items for
these producers.

Raw Fruit

The U.S. industries are at a competitive disadvantage with respect to the cost of raw fruit vis-
à-vis most foreign competitors.4 The average U.S. cost of raw peaches was 29 cents per one
kilogram can in 2007, which represented 31 percent of the total production cost. Relatively
high field labor rates are a major factor in the cost of raw peaches to U.S. processors. U.S.
peach growers are considering mechanizing the harvesting process as a result of labor
availability and cost.5 The cost of raw peaches in China is similar to that in the United States,
reflecting the small scale and dispersed structure of the industry, a large fresh market that
competes for supply, and a limited supply of yellow peaches compared with other varieties.6
Raw peach costs are lowest in Greece, reflecting, in part, relatively low field labor rates and
EU government assistance to growers. Thailand’s raw material consists of imported canned
peaches that are repacked mainly into smaller sized plastic jars and cups. Thus, the cost of
the raw fruit already reflects labor and other costs that were incurred during initial processing
in the source country.

One significant cost difference for raw fruit is seen among pear varieties in China. China has
a substantial supply of crunchy pear varieties, mainly snow pears, for canning. The cost to
processors of crunchy pear varieties typically is about five cents per kilogram compared with
about 25–30 cents per kilogram for Bartlett pears.7 This results in a substantial cost
advantage because China’s rise in U.S. market share likely resulted from sales of these lower
cost varieties, which are sold mainly through budget retail and institutional sectors.

Cans

The U.S. industry faces similar costs for cans vis-à-vis most foreign competitors. The cost
of cans is similar worldwide, with most producers paying between 18 cents to 20 cents per
one kilogram can, as of April 2007. Cans typically are the second leading cost item in the
production of canned fruit. The cost of cans represented a similar share of total costs among
major global producers of canned peaches in 2007, ranging between 18 percent and
25 percent.

4
The U.S. canning industries source most of their raw fruit requirements domestically.
5
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, January–April 2007.
6
The bulk of China’s peach production is of white peaches intended for non-U.S. markets.
7
Raw Bartlett pear costs in China are comparable with the United States.

3-4
Labor

The United States is at a competitive disadvantage with respect to labor costs, which
typically are the third leading cost item in canned peach and pear production. U.S. producers
incurred labor costs of 14 cents per one kilogram can in 2007, higher than such costs for all
other major foreign competitors. U.S. labor costs accounted for the highest share of total
costs, 15 percent, among major producers. U.S. factory labor rates ranked highest among
major producers at $20 per hour in 2007. Lower labor costs in the EU resulted from
substantially lower factory wages. The relatively low labor cost in Thailand results from the
use of canned raw material that incorporates labor costs in source markets. China’s labor cost
is relatively low despite the use of hand labor by Chinese canners in most of the production
process. The low labor cost reflects, in part, relatively low wage rates, typically about
$1.50 per hour.

Other Costs

The United States is competitive regarding other production costs, such as energy,
packaging, capital, storage, and regulatory compliance. These costs totaled 26 cents per
kilogram and accounted for 28 percent of total U.S. costs in 2007 (table 3.1). Such costs in
aggregate were highest in Thailand at 50 cents per kilogram. All global producers have been
affected by rising costs for many of these other cost items in recent years.

Fixed Costs

An important factor affecting fixed unit costs for the U.S. fruit canning industries is that
some firms process peaches and pears only during the harvesting season for these fruits,
which is about three months of the year.8 Thus, capacity is not fully utilized throughout the
year. While most also process other types of fruit, such as apricots, apples, or cherries, this
extends their operating period only several weeks more through the year.9 During the
remaining time, which for most U.S. canneries covers more than half of the year, the
canneries are idle and downtime is used for maintenance and preparation for the next season.

In contrast to U.S. industry practices, the fruit canning industries in the EU and China
process a greater variety of fruit and thus operate for longer periods of the year.10 Their
greater economies of scope help place these foreign supplier industries at a cost advantage
relative to the U.S. fruit canning industries.

Market Size
Domestic market size (i.e., overall consumption) is an important structural factor in
determining the competitiveness of the domestic fruit canning industries in each of the
markets. In the United States, a large domestic market provides a potentially important
competitive advantage for U.S. canners. This is because the large domestic market can

8
Industry officials, emails to Commission staff, October 3 and 5, 2007.
9
Ibid.
10
See chapters 5 and 6.

3-5
enable domestic canneries to benefit from high levels of production capacity utilization and
economies of size. These benefits can translate into higher levels of industry efficiency and
ultimately to lower prices offered to customers. However, U.S. canners may not have fully
realized this potential competitive advantage over foreign suppliers.

The U.S. canned fruit market involves sales of traditional canned products and, increasingly,
innovative products such as single serve plastic fruit cups in plastic containers. Canned fruits
are sold domestically into three distinct market segments—retail, institutional, and the
USDA—and within the retail sector, consumers have a choice between private label and
branded products. Each of these market segments have different market size, growth, and
demand characteristics. This makes the relationship between market size and industry
competitiveness complex.

The U.S. market for traditional canned fruit products is mature, with overall consumption
declining throughout most of the period under review. According to fruit canners, this
decline is mostly associated with lower levels of fresh fruit supply in response to an overall
decline in demand, which led to declining prices received by growers and tree pulls. In some
years, weather related growing disruptions affected raw fruit supplies. With less fruit
available for canning, U.S. cannery production was constrained, which, in turn, increasingly
opened up the U.S. market to imports, which have captured an increasing share of the
declining U.S. market.11 Increased import supply effectively reduced producer concentration
in the U.S. canned fruit market and weakened U.S. canners’ ability to negotiate canned
product prices. Thus, while the U.S. market is large enough to support production from
multiple domestic firms and to provide a potential competitive advantage to domestic
canners, the U.S. industries have not benefitted from this advantage.

Additionally, in contrast to traditional products, newer products are enjoying steady demand
growth, particularly by institutional outlets (such as schools and hospitals) that previously
purchased traditional products.12 Again, U.S. canners have not taken full advantage of this
growth, as growth in their production capacity was outpaced by market growth during the
period under review. As a result, a substantial portion of the growing market for newer
products is supplied by imports, although a significant share of imports are from U.S.-based
firms operating in overseas markets. For example, most imports from Thailand are packaged
by Dole, and recently Del Monte began importing fruit in plastic cups from China and other
sources.

Domestic market size affects the competitiveness of foreign suppliers to the U.S. market. For
example, the EU canned fruit market is large, enabling many canneries, especially in Spain
and Greece, to operate at economically efficient levels, which also helps them export to the
United States at competitive prices.13 In contrast, the Thai market for canned peaches and
pears is small and there is very limited domestic production of fresh fruit for canning. As a
result, the few canning firms in Thailand depend mainly on imports of canned product for

11
U.S. fruit canners are reluctant to import raw material for reprocessing into retail containers, as the Thai
industry almost exclusively does. This reluctance, according to U.S. industry officials, comes from previous
U.S. industry experience with importing, in which the added costs of transport and of labor involved in
transferring fruit from large cans to small containers, plus the reduction in quality caused by such transfer
(the rejection of inferior or damaged fruit adding to the cost), made such a practice unprofitable. Industry
officials, interviews by Commission staff, Sacramento, CA, January 30–February 2, 2007.
12
See chapter 4 for a discussion of the market development of these newer products.
13
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Sacramento, CA, January 30–February 2, 2007, and
Imathia, Greece, August 9–10, 2007.

3-6
processing and on the export market for sufficient sales to enable them to operate their
canneries at efficient capacity levels.14 The domestic market in China for canned fruit
currently is small relative to its absolute size. However, consumption has been increasing,
a trend that is expected to continue as incomes rise. China reportedly is likely to become a
net importer of canned fruit in the near future.15

Industry Concentration
Industry concentration influences the price paid by processors to growers for fresh fruit and
the price received from distributors for canned fruit. Therefore, it bears directly on the
competitiveness of the canned fruit industries.

Growing Industry

U.S. canned fruit industries’ competitiveness vis-à-vis most foreign supplier industries is
aided by the low level of concentration in the fruit growing industry. The U.S. industry
growing cling peaches for canning is centered in California and numbers about
700 operations, most of which also produce other crops. Most are small operations (the
average orchard size is 46 acres), but a few are large (up to 500 acres), with the ten largest
growers accounting for 12 percent of the U.S. crop. There are about 1,400 growers of
Bartlett pears for canning, in Washington and Oregon, with another 250 growers in
California.

Both the total number of growers and the average size of individual growers have been
declining in recent years, as some firms pull up a portion of their fruit trees while others exit
the fruit industry altogether. The main reason for this trend is a decline in net revenues to
growers resulting from a decline in fruit prices paid by canners and increases in costs of
some key inputs such as labor, fuel, and water. As noted, this decline has created supply
shortages for canners.

There is one grower cooperative (co-op) for peaches and one for pears in the United States.
Virtually all growers of peaches and pears for canning have supply contracts with canners.
These contracts provide for annually set prices and crop inspection from the canner’s
representatives. The contracts help ensure that growers have a market for their crop and
canners can plan with some certainty (subject to crop yields and quality) expected supply.

In the EU industry, there are many more fruit growers than in the U.S. industry, and many
more co-ops and producer organizations. Because growers and co-ops in the EU have
alternative market channels (e.g., the fresh and puree markets) for their crop, canners likely
pay higher prices than they would if growers had no alternative but to sell to the canners,
such as the case in the United States.16 Despite such higher prices resulting from EU co-ops
and growers’ alternative markets, prices paid by EU canners to growers generally are lower

14
Industry officials, telephone interview by Commission staff, September 2007.
15
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations, Spain, Greece, and China,
August–September 2007.
16
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations, California, Spain, and Greece,
January–September 2007.

3-7
than U.S. prices, putting the EU at a competitive advantage relative to the U.S. industry in
this regard.17

In China, there are substantially more fruit growers than in the United States and they
generally are not organized into co-ops. There is little coordination between growers and
processors. Most Chinese production of peaches and pears is consumed locally in fresh form,
and the available supply of varieties that are preferred for global canned fruit markets is
limited.18 Therefore, Chinese fruit canners pay prices that are nearly as high as those paid by
U.S. canners for those varieties.19

Canning Industry

The U.S. canned fruit industries, once composed of a large number of firms, have become
increasingly concentrated over the years.20 Today the U.S. peach canning segment of the
industry is made up of four canners, operating five establishments, all in California. The
three largest peach canners account for about 90 percent of annual U.S. production.21 The
U.S. canned pear industry consists of three processors in California, canning mostly fruit
mixtures, and six processors in Washington and Oregon canning only grade pack pears.22
Fruit mixtures are canned by three processors in California.

The canned fruit industries of most major foreign competitors are not as concentrated as the
U.S. industries. For example, Greece and Spain each have about 15 peach processors, and
China has approximately 1,000 processors of canned fruit. However, the EU industry has
been consolidating, with the number of processors dropping by about one half during the
past decade.23 The industry in China has also been consolidating during the period. This
consolidation is expected by industry officials to continue, as firms adjust to an increasingly
competitive global market.24 An exception is the canned fruit industry in Thailand, which is
the most highly concentrated among global canned fruit producers. A single firm, Dole
Thailand Company Limited, operating two canneries, accounts for the bulk of production.

Despite the concentration of firms in the U.S. canned fruit industries, the shares of the U.S.
market supplied by the U.S. industries are declining and, when foreign exporters to the U.S.
market are included, the total number of suppliers to the U.S. market has been growing. This
increasing competition makes it more difficult for U.S. canners to pass on cost increases such
as those associated with rising fuel prices. Although this is particularly true in the
institutional sector, it is becoming increasingly common in the retail sector as well.

17
This paragraph applies to peaches; similar information for EU canning pears is not available.
18
These varieties include yellow peaches and Bartlett pears.
19
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations, September 10–18, 2007.
20
Van Konynenberg, 75 Years of History, 1997. The consolidation occurred before the period under
review.
21
California Canning Peach Association, email message to Commission staff, May 14, 2007.
22
Ibid.
23
Spanish and Greek industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various location,
August 6–10, 2007.
24
Industry officials, interview by Commission staff, China, September 2007.

3-8
Food Distribution Industry

Rising concentration in the food distribution industry, particularly at the retail level, is
diminishing the ability of U.S. canned fruit firms to maintain market share by influencing
how wholesale and retail prices for canned fruit are set. Greater competition in the U.S.
market between U.S. and imported canned fruit is reportedly partly a result of greater market
power held by food retailers.25 The share of the U.S. retail grocery market held by the top
four firms in that industry has risen sharply in recent years.26 This reportedly has negatively
affected the canned fruit industries’ pricing and marketing strategies.27 Although retail price
competition is waged at the local level,28 wholesale price competition is considered to be
more national in scope,29 in large part because there are fewer firms engaged principally in
grocery wholesaling.30 According to canning industry sources, many of these firms have
been replaced by wholesaling arms of retail chains themselves. These retail/wholesale firms
include regional and national chains of supermarkets, grocery stores, and convenience stores,
as well as mass merchandisers such as large discount department stores and club stores.
Increasingly, fruit canners seeking nationwide distribution of their products must negotiate
wholesale prices directly with these retail chains.

Maximizing market share, or shelf space, at the store level is an important objective for fruit
canners31 and an important measure of their competitiveness, as individual firms and as an
industry. In negotiating wholesale prices with advertised brand fruit canners, retailers have
two growing sources of buying power: rising retail market share and increased availability
of canned fruit supplies, both imported and domestic, carrying retailers’ private labels. Such
buying power may cause downward pressure on revenues received by U.S. canners for their
own brands.32

Private label canned fruit is produced by both domestic and foreign suppliers. Domestic
canners likely have a competitive advantage over foreign competitors in supplying private

25
Del Monte Foods Company, fiscal 2007, Form 10-K, 6.
26
Between 1997 and 2002 (the latest Economic Census year), the share of grocery store sales held by the
4 largest chains grew from 19.9 percent to 31 percent. Similar increases were seen for the top 8 firms.
Grocery data for mass merchandisers such as club stores and “supercenters” are not reported owing to data
confidentiality.
27
See, e.g., discussions of retail competitive conditions in Del Monte Foods Company, fiscal 2007 10-K,
6; and Seneca Foods Corp. (“Libby’s) fiscal 2007, Form 10-K, 3, 6.
28
See, e.g., Whole Foods Market, Inc., and Wild Oats Markets, Inc., FTC Docket No. 9324, Complaint,
June 28, 2007, paragraph 40 (“[a] relevant geographic market in which to analyze the effects of the proposed
Acquisition is an area as small as approximately five or six miles in radius ... or as large as a metropolitan
area”). Kroger, an owner/operator of nearly 2,500 supermarkets under various subsidiaries, states that its
stores generally draw customers from a 2-2½ mile radius. The Kroger Company, fiscal 2007, Form 10-K,
Part I, Item 1, paragraph 6.
29
One grocery wholesaler has indicated that competition ranges from the store-by-store level to the
regional (small chain or division of a national chain) level. Piggly Wiggly Alabama Distributing Company,
fiscal 1995, Form 10-K, Part I, Item 1.
30
Between 1997 and 2002 (the latest Economic Census year), the number of “canned goods merchant
wholesalers” (NAICS code 4244904) declined by 12.6 percent, from 913 firms to 798 firms.
31
See, e.g., Del Monte Foods Company, fiscal 2007, Form 10-K, 6 (“[Del Monte] generally compete[s]
based upon brand strength and loyalty, product and packaging quality and innovation, taste, nutrition,
breadth of our product line, price, and convenience”).
32
Under certain conditions, discussed below, the introduction of private label alternatives may cause the
prices of advertised brands to rise even as quantities fall. Either way, advertised brands lose a key marketing
objective: retail shelf space. Del Monte Foods Company, fiscal 2007, Form 10-K, 19.

3-9
 label product.33 Because their canneries are in the national market they serve, transportation
costs, speed in supplying retailers’ orders, the ability to hold the retailers’ inventory for
them, and quality consistent with their own advertised brands are advantages for the
domestic canneries. An important disadvantage is labor costs, and thus overall production
costs. Private label canned fruit production is less profitable for canners than their branded
product34 and, therefore, although the quantity of canned fruit produced by a canner may be
constant, the overall revenue received declines as sales trend to lower priced private label
products. Among the major national brands, only Dole, which is an importer, not a domestic
producer of canned peaches and pears, has recently gained market share for its own brand
in the U.S. retail market, although it still lags behind Del Monte’s market share.35

Government Involvement and Trade Practices

Government involvement puts U.S. industries at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis their
EU counterparts with regard to fresh fruit and at a competitive advantage vis-à-vis other
global producers with respect to processed products. Tariffs are significant in all major
importer markets (table 3.3). Import tariffs are the principal trade policy tool for canned fruit
in major importing nations, and tariff rates in the United States are in the middle of the range
of tariffs applied in those markets.

Table 3.3 Canned fruit: Ad valorem import tariffs in selected markets

Country Peaches Pears Mixed fruit
United States 17.0 15.3 14.9
EU 15.2-19.2 16.0-19.2 13.6-19.2
Japan 6.7-29.8 9.0-21.0 6.0-29.8
China 10.0-20.0 20.0 10.0
Source: Individual countries’ Harmonized Tariff Schedules.

In addition to tariffs, government involvement is concentrated in the growing sector of most

global canned fruit industries. As outlined in chapter 6, in the EU such involvement
generally includes direct payments to growers, technological support, and assistance for
agricultural practices. The EU provides direct payments to growers under the Common
Agricultural Policy’s common market organization for fruit and vegetables. Such payments,
which are channeled through producer organizations (POs), are provided to peach and pear
growers based on the quantity of fruit they deliver to processors, and are in the form of a
price supplement. The payments are in addition to the prices negotiated between growers and
processors and vary by member state. In 2006, the payments were equal to 18 and 23 percent
of the total price received by growers for peaches destined for processing in Greece and
Spain, respectively. The payments for pears represented 48 percent of the negotiated sales
price in Spain that year. These payments have been equivalent to approximately 7 or
8 percent of the canners’ total production cost. These payments to growers contribute to a

33
However, imports of private label products in newer packaging, such as single serve plastic cups,
increased their market share in recent years.
34
Del Monte Foods Company, fiscal 2007, Form 10-K, 6–7.
35
As noted in chapter 4, Dole’s market share grew from 13 percent in 2005 to 20 percent in 2006, while
Del Monte’s declined from 50 to 48 percent. California Canning Peach Association, email message to
Commission staff, September 6, 2007. Dole’s gain, according to industry sources, probably came mainly at
the expense of private label product in cans that were displaced by Dole’s product in plastic containers.

3-10
more stable supply and are passed on as lower costs for EU processors. In addition to direct
payments, growers also benefit from EU funding for operational programs of their POs.
Program activities generally involve research and development, agricultural practices,
quality, marketing, and promotion.

Growers in the United States receive no direct support from the government. However,
research and development, and technological assistance is provided to U.S. peach and pear
growers by the Agricultural Extension Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (see
chapter 4 for more information).

In China, growers benefit from research and development programs through National Agro-
Technical Extension and Service Center of the Ministry of Agriculture. Such government
involvement benefits the cost competitiveness of the relatively unconcentrated peach and
pear growing industries in China, as it contributes to containing overall costs while
implementing cost saving programs, such as innovative production and harvesting practices.

Competitiveness in the U.S. processing sector is enhanced by U.S. government purchases.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture purchases canned fruit for various federal food
assistance programs and the National School Lunch Program. Such purchases accounted for
about 10 percent of U.S. processors’ sales in recent years.36 The effect of the program is to
remove supplies from the commercial market, which results in higher market prices than
would have occurred in the absence of the program. EU processors are subject to production
limits, based on the amount of raw fruit used for processing. If the limits are exceeded,
growers are subject to lower aid payments. Canned fruit processors in China receive no
direct government aid.

Exchange Rates
Recent trends in U.S. dollar exchange rates with foreign currencies have helped the
competitiveness of the U.S. canned fruit industry vis-à-vis foreign suppliers in the U.S.
market; the lower value of the dollar puts upward pressure on prices of imported canned fruit
products from all leading foreign supplier industries and thus tends to raise the price of U.S.
canned fruit that competes with such imports.

Table 3.4 shows recent trends in nominal and real (inflation adjusted) exchange rates for the
U.S. dollar vis-à-vis the Chinese yuan (or renminbi), the European euro, and the Thai baht.
All three foreign currencies have appreciated in value relative to the dollar, although in the
case of the yuan the entire change has taken place only since mid-2006.

36
See table 4.14.

3-11
Table 3.4 Exchange rates: Units of foreign currency per U.S. dollar, 2002–06
Foreign currency 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Percent change, 2002–06a
Chinese yuan Nominal 8.28 8.28 8.28 8.19 7.97 (3.7)
Real (2000 = 100) 7.89 7.82 7.92 7.72 7.36 (6.7)
Thai baht Nominal 43.0 41.5 40.2 40.2 37.9 (11.9)
Real (2000 = 100) 42.1 40.4 39.2 39.7 37.9 (10.0)
EU euro Nominal 1.06 0.89 0.81 0.80 0.80 (24.5)
Real (2000 = 100) 1.09 0.92 0.84 0.84 0.83 (23.9)
Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics (monthly), various issues.
a
Calculated from unrounded data.

Globally, the effects of the decline in the dollar’s value have not been uniformly distributed
across foreign suppliers. As noted in chapter 5, because the euro and the baht have risen
faster than the yuan, the effects of recent changes in the dollar-yuan exchange rate on
Chinese canned fruit exporters have been mitigated. Also, according to Chinese industry
sources, many inputs used by China’s canned fruit industry are either purchased directly
from the United States or are purchased in world trade priced in dollars, which means the
costs of those inputs are lower. According to EU industry sources, EU exporters of canned
fruit have not had the same benefit because few of their inputs are imported from outside the
EU.37 And the appreciation of the baht contributed to an increase in U.S. exports of canned
peaches and canned pears to Thailand for repackaging and export to the United States.

Vertical Coordination
Vertical coordination (ownership or contracts linking canneries to growers, distributors, and
retailers) is typically undertaken to reduce or avoid the risk of price fluctuations, supply
shortages, and other transaction costs. Such coordination ranges from informal agreements
to short or long term contracts, to outright ownership of one party by the other (vertical
integration). Vertical coordination relates to competitiveness in the canned fruit industry by
giving canners more certainty about raw material supply, distributor demand, and prices.

The U.S. canned fruit industries have a competitive advantage in this area over foreign
supplier industries. As discussed in chapter 4, the U.S. industry benefits from its
coordination with growers on the upstream side and distributors on the downstream side.
Vertical coordination between canners and retailers or foodservice firms tends to be weaker
(contracts are shorter and/or less comprehensive) than coordination between canners and
growers, who often have multiyear supply contracts (generally renewed annually with
updated prices) which stipulate fruit quality and provide for technical or financing assistance
to the grower by the canner.38 Reportedly, vertical coordination between canners and growers
includes tradeoffs.39 For example, a supply contract between a grower and a canner reduces
risk for each, but eliminates flexibility for growers to be able to shift their raw product into
other marketing channels. While this may be true in other countries, in the United States
almost all cling peaches are sold under contract to a handful of canners such as Del Monte

37
Industry officials in both the EU and China have estimated their current breakeven point with respect to
the price of their respective currencies in U.S. dollars. Those estimates are $0.71 for the euro and $0.14 for
the yuan. Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Imathia, Greece, August 2007, and China,
September 2007.
38
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Sacramento, CA, January 30–February 2, 2007.
39
Ibid.

3-12
and Pacific Coast Producers (PCP). Cling peaches have little use other than for canning and
canners find other U.S. peach varieties generally unsuitable for canning. Vertical
coordination allows for greater certainty for both U.S. cling peach growers and canners, at
little or no cost because there is no significant alternative supply source for canners and no
significant alternative market for growers.

In other countries, such as Greece, Spain, and China, different varieties of peaches enjoy
strong demand in both canned and fresh form, so there is relatively less contractual
coordination in those canned fruit industries because growers do not wish to be tied to
canners in case prices for fresh fruit or puree rise.40 The uncertainty inherent in relying on
the spot market in those countries is an acceptable tradeoff for growers who gain more
flexibility in marketing. But as a result, canners have a more uncertain supply of raw material
available and they sometimes have to process fruit at a higher cost or must turn to processing
other types of fruit to minimize losses but maximize economies of scale.41 The alternative
market options of growers creates a competitive disadvantage for canners in certain foreign
supplying countries, especially Spain and China.

Pricing and Marketing Practices

Recent developments in the pricing and marketing of canned fruit in the U.S. market have
weakened the competitiveness of the U.S. canned fruit industries as pricing and marketing
practices have changed. The growing presence of imports, newer products, such as fruit cups
and flavored canned peaches, and private label supplies of traditional canned products has
altered price relationships between products (e.g., cans of different sizes) and brands that
have evolved over many years. And, according to industry sources, this has resulted in the
loss of some of the canners’ ability to negotiate prices in the U.S. canned fruit market.42 And
while consumers may have benefitted through lower prices and wider product choices,
market shares of U.S. canners in the domestic market have diminished.

As mentioned previously, canned fruit marketed in the United States is sold primarily
through retail outlets and institutional outlets, but sales data are confidential and not
available. Sales are also made to the USDA for its school lunch program.43 Sales are made
either under national labels, such as Del Monte or Libby’s, or private labels, such as the
“Safeway” label or several regional chains’ use of the “RichFood” label. National brands are
those marketed nationwide, although, according to industry sources, some brands are
stronger in certain regional markets than in others.44 A number of price and non-price
marketing mechanisms are used for the national brands, such as coupons or advertising in
various media.45 Private label products are marketed almost solely on the basis of price and
usually with limited advertising.

Prices for national brands are generally higher than prices for private label products because
national brands enjoy greater consumer loyalty and confidence in the products’ quality. But
the price relationship between national brand products and private label products can be

40
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Imathia, Greece, August 9–10, 2007.
41
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Murcia, Spain, and Imathia, Greece, August 2007.
42
Industry officials, telephone interviews by Commission staff, May 2007.
43
California Canning Peach Association, email message to Commission staff, September 6, 2007.
44
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Sacramento, CA, January 30–February 2, 2007.
45
Industry officials, telephone interviews by Commission staff, August 2007.

3-13
 complex.46 The competition from a private label product does not necessarily drive down the
price of the national brand product.47 Although private label products often are produced by
the same canneries that produce national brand products, consumers generally are willing
to pay more for the latter than the former.48 This is true more so in the retail sector, according
to industry sources. In the institutional sector, buyers generally value lower prices and
consistency of supply over brand reputation, as the final consumer generally will not learn
the brand. This aspect of canned fruit marketing, according to industry sources, is especially
important to producers without a well known brand, such as most foreign suppliers to the
U.S. market, who must focus on price conscious buyers as a means to get established in the
market.

Innovation
Innovation is tied to competitiveness and market share because it leads to improved products
or production methods and reduced costs, which in turn help industries to maintain or
increase demand and therefore market share. During the period under review, the U.S.
industries have not taken full advantage of some important innovations in canned fruit
production and marketing. The mainstay product of the U.S. canning industries is fruit in
metal cans. This product has remained virtually unchanged for decades, save for the
introduction in recent years of the pull-top can and the use of light syrup and other flavoring
ingredients. However, packaging innovations have taken place, such as fruit packed in
plastic jars or in single-serving plastic cups, often in a multipack. While some of these
products are produced domestically, a sizeable share of U.S. supply is imported because their
production at present is less expensive abroad owing to lower costs of labor and other inputs.
U.S. processors have not invested sufficiently to expand production of these products at the
same rate as the rise in the quantity demanded based on considerations of returns on
investment.

Summary of Findings
The U.S. canned fruit industries lost market share to foreign suppliers during 2002–06
primarily for the following reasons:

• The U.S. industries did not sufficiently increase their production capacity
to meet rising demand for newer forms of packaging, such as plastic cups
and jars, during 2002–06. A shift in U.S. market preferences to this type of
packaging benefitted foreign suppliers, who increased their share of these
market segments.

46
Ibid.
47
To the extent that a private label draws consumers who make purchases largely on the basis of price
(with price elastic demand) away from the advertised brand, the marketer of the advertised brand is left with
loyal buyers (with relatively price inelastic demand). Other things being equal, this allows the marketer to
raise the price of the advertised brand, losing volume but gaining total sales revenue. A price increase may
not happen, however, if the marketer’s objective is to maximize volume or market share (shelf space). See
also, Del Monte Foods Company, fiscal 2007, Form 10-K, 19 (“Additionally, if we increase our prices, we
may need to increase marketing spending, including trade promotion spending, in order to retain our market
share. Such increased marketing costs may significantly offset the benefits, if any, of any price increase.”)
48
Del Monte Foods Company, fiscal 2007, Form 10-K, 19.

3-14
• Increased market power by wholesale and retail buyers, owing to
consolidation in the distribution chain, coupled with increasing use of
private label packs, with the rise supplied largely by imports, further
eroded the domestic market share of the U.S. canned fruit industries.

• Foreign suppliers, particularly Thailand and China, use facilities that

produce a variety of canned food products, which spreads fixed costs
across more products and lengthens production cycles, thus lowering their
unit costs. Some of these suppliers have also established supply
relationships with U.S. firms.

• Lower input costs, mainly for raw fruit and labor, in both established and
emerging competitor supplier countries, have lowered prices and
contributed to a rise in the import share of the U.S. market.

3-15
Bibliography
Abate, Getachew. “New product development trends in the fruit sector.” Michigan State University
Product Center, Strategic Marketing Institute Working Paper No. 1-102605, 2005.

Del Monte Foods Company, fiscal 2007, Form 10-K.

Dole Food Company, fiscal 2006, Form 10-K.

In the Matter of Whole Foods Market, Inc., and Wild Oats Markets, Inc., Federal Trade Commission
Docket No. 9324, File No. 0710114, Complaint, June 28, 2007.

International Monetary Fund. International Financial Statistics (monthly), various issues.

Piggly Wiggly Alabama Distributing Company, fiscal 1995, Form 10-K.

Scherer, Frederic M., and David Ross. Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance. 3d ed.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1990.

Seneca Foods Corp. (“Libby’s”), fiscal 2007, Form 10-K.

The Kroger Company, fiscal 2007, Form 10-K.

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Interactive Tariff and Trade

Dataweb (Dataweb). http://dataweb.usitc.gov (accessed various dates).

Van Konynenberg, Frank A. A Home and a Price: 75 Years of History with the California Canning
Peach Association. Sacramento, CA: California Canning Peach Association, 1997.

3-16
CHAPTER 4
The Industry in the United States
The United States is a major global producer and trader of canned peaches, canned pears, and
canned fruit mixtures. The domestic market, which comprises distinct retail and institutional
segments, accounts for the bulk of the industries’ sales. Historically, U.S. producers have
been the principal suppliers to the domestic market. However, in recent years a number of
foreign suppliers have captured an increasing share of the U.S. market.

U.S. production of canned peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures is located in California,
Washington, and Oregon, as canning facilities are located close to fruit growing areas. The
U.S. canning industry consists of a small number of large scale, capital intensive canneries,
which rely on a larger, but decreasing, number of peach and pear growers. While all
domestic canners principally market domestically packed products, some also source
products in other countries.1

U.S. production and consumption of canned peaches, canned pears, and canned fruit
mixtures declined during 2002–06, continuing a long term trend of decline. U.S. demand has
shifted from traditionally canned fruit products packed in metal cans to fruit packaged in
single serving plastic cups and in plastic jars. A large portion of U.S. industry sales are to
the institutional market segment, including hotels, hospitals, and prisons. Schools, through
USDA’s school lunch program as well as direct purchases, are also a significant market for
U.S. producers.

The U.S. canned fruit industries hold competitive advantages in a number of areas. These
include growers’ use of advanced technology and agricultural practices to produce a large
quantity of high quality fruit for processors,2 large scale processing facilities resulting in
economies of size, the use of advanced technology to enhance efficiency,3 plants located near
supplies of raw fruit, strong brand recognition in the domestic market, and efficient
transportation and distribution networks.4

The main competitive disadvantages facing the U.S. industry include high costs and a limited
production period and product scope compared with some foreign competitors, a shift in
domestic demand away from products packed in metal cans that traditionally had been the
U.S. industry’s main market, and consolidation in the distribution chain, giving more market
power to buyers.5

1
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Sacramento, CA, February 1, 2007.
2
U.S. grower yields are reported to be the highest of any growers world wide. Industry officials,
interview by Commission staff, Sacramento, CA, February 1, 2007.
3
Industry officials, interview by Commission staff, Sacramento, CA, February 1, 2007.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.

4-1
U.S. Production
U.S. fresh cling peach production fell by 36 percent, from 509,838 mt in 2002 to 325,680 mt
in 2006 (table 4.1). Virtually all such production is destined for processing, mainly into
various canned products. The decline in production resulted mainly from tree removal
programs in 2003 and 2005 to adjust to declining domestic demand and because of a
severely weather damaged crop in 2006.6 During 2002–06, the acreage removed from
production fluctuated between 1,501 acres in 2002 and 4,526 acres in 2006 (table 4.2).
Acreage planted with new trees generally declined during 2002–06. The net acreage and,
thus, fruit bearing acreage generally declined during 2002–06, reflecting the contraction in
the growing sector.

U.S. Bartlett pear production fluctuated irregularly during 2002–06, peaking in 2004 at
414,584 mt before ending at 387,368 mt in 2006 (table 4.1). Production was affected by the
weather7 as well as by conditions in both the fresh and processed markets similar to those
for cling peaches.

Table 4.1 Peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures: U.S. production volume and value, 2002–06
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Peaches:
Canned production (mt) 472,800 427,200 441,600 403,200 302,400
Canned production ($1,000) 132,639 108,484 141,494 122,939 104,846
Fresh production (mt) 509,838 486,252 488,973 439,078 325,680
Fresh production ($1,000) 138,814 115,240 141,494 122,939 104,846
Pears:
Canned production volume (mt) 199,200 177,600 175,200 160,800 192,000
Canned production value ($1,000) 72,067 69,127 68,678 58,434 62,344
Fresh production (mt) 406,419 413,677 414,584 354,710 387,368
Fresh production ($1,000) 125,537 124,221 127,046 126,293 128,954
Fruit mixtures:
Canned production volume 319,680 291,600 304,080 273,600 252,000
Canned production value (a) (a) (a) (a) (a)
Sources: Compiled from NASS, USDA, NonCitrus Fruit and Nuts, various issues; California Canning Peach
Association (CCPA).

Note: Canned production data on a quantity basis were provided by the CCPA at the 8th World Canned Deciduous
Fruit Conference, Sacramento, CA, April 15–19, 2007. Data for peaches and pears represent value of fresh
production used for canning as reported by USDA. All cling peach production goes for processing, none for fresh
market sales.
a
Not available.

6
Ibid.
7
Pears generally are grown in locations with more volatile weather conditions compared to peaches.
Commission staff telephone conversation with an industry official, November 5, 2007.

4-2
Table 4.2 Cling peaches: Trees pulled, trees planted, change in acreage, and bearing acreage, 2002–06
Year Trees pulled Trees planted Change in acreage Bearing acreage
Acres
2002 1,501 2,740 1,239 30,931
2003 3,674 1,652 (2,022) 31,408
2004 1,550 580 (970) 31,740
2005 3,912 890 (3,022) 30,199
2006 4,526 990 (3,536) 26,806
Source: California Canning Peach Association.

Note: Changes in acreage may not add to bearing acreage owing to time lags.

U.S. production of canned peaches declined irregularly during 2002–06 (table 4.1). The
period decline reflected a long term decline in domestic demand, particularly in the
institutional sector.8 Further, production in 2006 was unusually low because of severe, cold,
wet weather during the growing season that substantially reduced the quantity of peaches
available for harvest. U.S. production of canned fruit mixtures followed the same trend as
that for canned peaches, as firms that produce canned peaches account for the bulk of the
production of canned fruit mixtures (table 4.1). U.S. production of canned pears fell during
2002–05 but increased in 2006. The decline resulted from a long term decline in domestic
demand, while the increase occurred as pear processors responded to the substantial decline
in canned peach production. U.S. pear canners anticipated increased demand in the
institutional sector as a result of low canned peach production in 2006.9

Structure of the Industry

The U.S. industry producing canned peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures comprises two
distinct sectors—the growing sector and the processing sector. For peaches, the growing
sector is dedicated to the processing sector, as canners only utilize cling peaches and
virtually no cling peaches are destined for the fresh market. For pears, the growing sector
markets to both the fresh and processing sectors.

The process for growing peaches and pears for canning begins with the planting of trees.
Trees begin to bear significant quantities of fruit about 4 or 5 years after planting. After
harvesting, most fruit for processing is sent immediately to the processing plant, but a
surplus of harvested fruit may be stored for short periods of time prior to canning.10

There are approximately 700 California growers of cling peaches for processing, accounting
for more than 98 percent of total U.S. production of peaches for canning.11 During 2002–06,
the top 10 growers belonging to the California Canning Peach Association (CCPA)
accounted for 12 percent of total annual production.12 The average cling peach orchard size
in California in 2006 was about 46 acres, although some large volume growers cultivate up
to 500 acres of peaches. Most growers raise other crops, such as almonds, walnuts, and

8
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Sacramento, CA, April 3, 2007.
9
Commission staff telephone conversation with an industry official, November 5, 2007.
10
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Sacramento, CA, January 30–February 2, 2007.
11
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Washington, DC, February 20, 2007.
12
Data of the CCPA, May 14, 2007.

4-3
prunes.13 There are approximately 100 growers of Bartlett pears for canning in California,
accounting for about 15 percent of total U.S. production of such pears. There are an
estimated 1,400 Bartlett pear growers in Washington and Oregon and 250 in California;
these growers market both to the fresh and processing sectors.14

U.S. growers of peaches and pears for canning have consolidated in recent years. While
several California growers of peaches for canning are large operations, most are small to
moderate in size. Most canning peach growers depend upon sales of peaches for canning as
their most important annual source of revenue.15 Pear growers also range in size but
generally are less dependent on sales of pears for canning as a principal source of revenue.

The two main growing areas for California cling peaches are the San Joaquin Valley (Fresno,
Kern, Kings, Merced, Stanislaus, San Joaquin, and Tulare counties) and the Northern
California Region (Butte, El Dorado, Placer, Solana, Sutter, and Yuba counties).16 The two
main growing areas for California Bartlett pears for canning are the area along the
Sacramento River and north into the upper Sacramento Valley and the area from Mendocino
County to Clear Lake.17 The major growing regions for Bartlett pears in Washington are the
Mid Columbia district on the Oregon-Washington border, the Okanagan district near the
Washington-Canadian border, the Wenatchee district in north central Washington, and the
Yakima district in south central Washington.18 The major growing regions for Bartlett pears
in Oregon are the Mid Columbia/Hood River area along the Columbia river and the Rogue
River valley in the Medford area of southern Oregon.19

The process of canning peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures involves a series of distinct stages.
It starts with the delivery to the cannery of fruit. Upon entering the canning plant, the fruit
is cooled and then cleaned, graded, sorted, and sent to various production lines. The raw fruit
is cut and canned either according to specifications of the purchaser or to specifications
based on estimated demand in the upcoming marketing season.20 Canned fruit mixtures may
have various combinations of fruit, depending on the purchasers’ specifications. The
production process is largely mechanized.

Since 2002, an estimated 65–70 percent of the annual U.S. cling peach crop was processed
into canned peaches, 25 percent into canned fruit mixtures, and the remainder into peach
pulp, concentrates, and frozen peaches.21 Similarly, an estimated 65–70 percent of the annual

13
Data of the California Canning Peach Association, May 14, 2007.
14
Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Washington, DC, February 20, 2007.
15
Most growers are producing other crops as well. Industry officials, interview by Commission staff,
Sacramento, CA, January 30–February 2, 2007.
16
“Crop Profile for Peaches in California,” January 1999, 1–17, http://www.cipm.ncsu.edu, accessed
May 17, 2007.
17
“California Pears: Use and Versatility,” http://www.calpear.com/cns_use.cfm, accessed June 20, 2007.
18
“IPM Adoption in Pacific Northwest Pear Orchards,” National Foundation for IPM Education, 1997,
1–4, http://www.pesp.org/1997/wpcc97.htm, accessed May 17, 2007.
19
“Oregon’s Pear Industry-Key Facts,” http://oregon.gov/BRANDOREGON.shtml, accessed June 20,
2007.
20
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Sacramento, CA, January 30–February 2, 2007.
21
“The Impact of Trade Agreements Implemented Under Trade Promotion Authority,” written comments
of the California Cling Peach Board submitted to the U.S. International Trade Commission in connection
with its hearing on investigation No. TA-2103-1, May 2, 2005, 1, and industry officials, interviews by
Commission staff, Sacramento, CA, February 1, 2007.

4-4
Bartlett pear crop22 was processed (principally canned) in recent years, with the remainder
sold for fresh market consumption.23

The U.S. industries producing canned peaches, canned pears, and canned fruit mixtures
consolidated over the past 20 years; however, their concentration has remained steady during
2002–06. Canners of peaches and pears generally are large scale operations employing
modern, state-of-the-art technology and production processes.24 Currently there are 4 peach
canners in California,25 5 canners of Bartlett pears in Washington,26 and one Bartlett pear
canner in Oregon. These numbers have not changed since 2002. Three peach canners in
California are also canning Bartlett pears grown in California. Del Monte, Seneca, and
Pacific Coast Producers (PCP) account for an estimated 90 percent of annual California
canned cling peach production;27 the three largest pear canners in Washington, Del Monte,
Snokist Growers, and Northwest Packing, together account for the majority of U.S. canned
pear production.28

All peach canners, and most other fruit canners, produce an assortment of canned peach or
canned pear products; some are also canning other fruit and vegetable products.29 U.S.
canners traditionally packed their products in metal cans; however, two peach canners, PCP
and Del Monte, and one pear canner, Snokist, have production lines to pack fruit in single
serving plastic cups. During 2002–06, U.S. fruit canners have increased their capacity to
produce fruit packed in plastic cups incrementally, based on considerations of returns on
investment. PCP is a vertically integrated, cooperative grower and canner of peaches;
Snokist is a vertically integrated Washington cooperative grower and canner of pears.

Fruit packed in single serving plastic cups was introduced in the U.S. market in the early
1990s by PCP, based on technology developed by the Australian firm, Ardmona. Dole began
marketing these products shortly thereafter, sourcing product both from PCP and its overseas
fruit canneries. Del Monte began producing these products in the mid 1990s, and Snokist in
2006. Dole no longer markets these products from domestic sources.30

22
This refers to the entire crop produced in Washington, Oregon, and California. An estimated 70 percent
of the annual California Bartlett pear crop is processed.
23
Pears USA , “USA Pear History,” http://www.usapears.com/pears/history.asp, accessed June 20, 2007.
24
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Sacramento, CA, January 30–February 2, 2007.
25
The canners are Del Monte Foods Company, Pacific Coast Processors, Seneca Foods (Signature Fruit
Company), and California Fruit & Tomato Kitchens. Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff,
Sacramento, CA, January 30, 2007, and September 7, 2007.
26
The canners are Del Monte Foods Company, Snokist Growers, Northwest Packing, Independent Food
Processors Company, and Truitt Brothers. Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Washington,
DC, February 15, 2007.
27
Data of the California Canning Peach Association, May 14, 2007.
28
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Sacramento, CA, February 1, 2007.
29
Data of the California Canning Peach Association, May 14, 2007.
30
Industry officials, telephone interviews by Commission staff, October–November 2007.

4-5
Trade
Imports
U.S. imports of canned peaches, canned pears, and canned fruit mixtures generally increased
during 2002–06, both in terms of quantity and market share. The trend in such imports
during the period was influenced by a number of factors, including weather related supply
shifts, a long term decline in demand for canned fruit in traditional metal cans, and a more
recent increase in demand for fruit packed in plastic cups and jars. Imports generally
captured market share in the retail market segment for fruit packed in plastic cups and jars,
as U.S. production capacity remained largely constant during the period under review and
was insufficient to supply the rise in demand for the product in newer packaging. Imports
also gained in the lower value institutional market segment for pears and fruit mixtures,
owing mainly to lower costs.

After falling in terms of quantity during 2002–04, U.S. imports of canned peaches increased
during 2005–06 and totaled 60,693 mt, valued at $63.0 million, the latter year (table 4.3).
The decline resulted from supply disruptions for producers in the traditional leading supplier,
Greece, because of adverse weather conditions during the period. The subsequent increase
was supplied mainly by nontraditional sources, Thailand and China, and was accounted for
mainly by imports of peaches packed in retail size containers (table 4.4). Such imports from
Thailand and China consist mainly of peaches packed in plastic cups and jars.31

Table 4.3 Canned peaches: U.S. imports, by principal sources, 2002–06

Source 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
Greece 36,633 9,537 4,881 11,838 13,943
China 2,863 4,669 8,668 13,661 18,054
Thailand 2,464 7,082 9,835 5,814 6,938
Chile 5 1,085 2,817 3,584 5,862
Spain 6,024 2,373 4,404 4,025 8,897
Other 12,431 12,783 5,169 4,133 7,000
Total 60,420 37,529 35,774 43,055 60,693
Value (1,000 US dollars)
Greece 24,267 6,208 3,652 11,967 15,109
China 1,586 2,884 6,176 9,487 12,439
Thailand 4,057 11,399 17,725 9,402 11,243
Chile 7 2,078 5,348 4,291 8,660
Spain 4,336 1,897 3,774 4,388 6,888
Other 8,735 11,038 5,156 5,746 8,622
Total 42,989 35,504 41,833 45,281 62,963
Unit value (dollars/metric ton)
Greece 662 651 748 1,011 1,084
China 554 618 713 694 689
Thailand 1,647 1,610 1,802 1,617 1,621
Chile 1,509 1,915 1,899 1,197 1,477
Spain 720 799 857 1,090 774
Other 703 863 997 1,390 1,232
Average 711 946 1,169 1,052 1,037
Source: USITC, Dataweb.

31
U.S. and Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, September–October, 2007.

4-6
Table 4.4 Canned peaches: U.S. imports, by selected countries, by market segment, 2002–06
Source and market segment 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Metric tons
China:
Retail 762 1,582 3,234 4,244 4,677
Institutional 2,101 3,087 5,434 9,417 13,377
Total 2,863 4,669 8,668 13,661 18,054
Greece:
Retail 17,796 3,350 2,146 7,644 9,176
Institutional 18,837 6,187 2,736 4,193 4,767
Total 36,633 9,537 4,882 11,837 13,943
Thailand:
Retail 2,436 7,079 9,833 5,814 6,886
Institutional 28 3 2 0 52
Total 2,464 7,082 9,835 5,814 6,938
World:
Retail 30,694 20,743 24,182 27,353 38,772
Institutional 29,726 16,785 11,592 15,702 21,921
Total 60,420 37,528 35,774 43,055 60,693
Source: USITC, Dataweb.

U.S. imports of canned pears increased substantially during 2002–06, reaching 33,284 metric
tons, valued at $21.5 million (table 4.5). Such imports declined somewhat in 2005, as the
previous year’s quantity was unusually large. Nontraditional suppliers, China and Thailand,
became the leading import sources during the period. Most of the increase was value added
products in smaller container sizes including cups (table 4.6). Imports from China generally
increased both for low value institutional size metal cans and for higher value retail size
plastic cups.32 The bulk of China’s canned pear exports are produced from low cost snow
pears.33 The growth in imports from Thailand was accounted for by pears packed in retail
size plastic cups.34

U.S. imports of canned mixed fruit rose irregularly during 2002–06 and amounted to
18,361 metric tons, valued at $23.9 million, in 2006 (table 4.7). China and Thailand were the
leading import sources during the period. As with canned peaches and canned pears, the bulk
of the increase in imports of canned fruit mixtures occurred in retail size containers supplied
by Thailand and China (table 4.8). Most of this increase consisted of fruit mixtures packed
in plastic cups and jars.35

Exports
The U.S. canned fruit industries traditionally have not been export oriented. U.S. exports of
canned peaches, canned pears, and canned fruit mixtures typically account for less than 10
percent of production. Traditional export markets include Canada and Mexico, where
proximity to the markets is an advantage. However, in recent years, U.S. exports of canned
peaches to Thailand and China and canned pears to Thailand have increased; such exports,
packed in institutional size metal cans, are repackaged into retail size plastic cups and

32
Ibid.
33
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, September, 2007.
34
U.S. and Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, September–October, 2007.
35
Ibid.

4-7
Table 4.5 Canned pears: U.S. imports, by principal sources, 2002–06
Source 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
China 5,263 10,356 12,286 13,912 21,160
Thailand 5 1,934 9,469 5,289 5,511
Australia 733 1,720 0 0 3,446
Spain 919 501 1,022 996 1,511
Chile 0 0 0 0 681
Other 5,722 3,514 841 679 975
Total 12,642 18,025 23,617 20,876 33,284
Value (1,000 US dollars)
China 2,874 5,335 5,818 6,721 12,437
Thailand 5 2,635 5,786 3,814 4,538
Australia 427 839 0 0 2,370
Spain 768 430 557 610 764
Chile 0 0 0 0 553
Other 3,879 2,511 605 586 791
Total 7,954 11,750 12,766 11,731 21,453
Unit value (dollars/metric ton)
China 546 515 474 483 588
Thailand 918 1,363 611 721 823
Australia 583 488 - - 688
Spain 836 858 546 612 506
Chile - - - - 813
Other 678 715 720 863 811
Average 629 652 541 562 645
Source: USITC, Dataweb.

Table 4.6 Canned pears: U.S. imports, by selected countries, by market segment, 2002–06
Source and market segment 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Metric tons
China:
Retail 1,949 3,543 3,310 3,282 10,756
Institutional 3,314 6,822 8,976 10,630 10,404
Total 5,263 10,365 12,286 13,912 21,160
Thailand:
Retail 1 1,934 9,469 5,289 5,511
Institutional 4 0 0 0 0
Total 5 1,934 9,469 5,289 5,511
South Africa:
Retail 2,577 1,516 279 269 449
Institutional 2,407 1,862 353 87 171
Total 4,984 3,378 632 356 620
World:
Retail 5,087 8,022 14,151 9,920 21,034
Institutional 7,556 10,003 9,466 10,956 12,250
Total 12,643 18,025 23,617 20,876 33,284
Source: USITC, Dataweb.

exported to the U.S. market.36 Thus, the U.S. canned peach and canned pear industries have
benefitted to some degree from the growth in U.S. imports of fruit packed in plastic cups
from Thailand and China.

36
Ibid.

4-8
Table 4.7 Canned fruit mixtures: U.S. imports, by principal sources, 2002–06
Source 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
Thailand 1,122 929 5,125 4,796 5,039
China 1,306 1,539 2,956 3,092 6,865
Mexico 0 0 5 24 1,201
Philippines 21 244 1,026 1,183 883
Chile 128 29 174 346 1,040
Other 3,956 1,712 1,241 791 3,333
Total 6,534 4,453 10,527 10,232 18,361
Value (1,000 US dollars)
Thailand 1,471 1,392 9,601 8,669 8,795
China 891 1,050 2,346 2,613 5,662
Mexico 0 0 3 69 3,376
Philippines 16 411 1,877 2,176 1,707
Chile 99 45 312 547 1,407
Other 3,055 1,483 1,480 955 2,993
Total 5,531 4,380 15,621 15,029 23,940
Unit value (dollars/metric ton)
Thailand 1,311 1,497 1,873 1,808 1,745
China 682 682 794 845 825
Mexico - - 640 2,910 2,810
Philippines 775 1,687 1,829 1,839 1,933
Chile 772 1,586 1,797 1,583 1,354
Other 772 866 1,193 1,207 898
Average 847 984 1,484 1,469 1,304
Source: USITC, Dataweb.

Note: Data are for HTS subheadings 2008.92.30 and 2008.92.35, canned fruit mixtures containing peaches or pears.

Table 4.8 Canned fruit mixtures: U.S. imports, by selected countries, by market segment, 2002–06
Source and market segment 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Metric tons
China:
Retail 46 158 1,119 1,421 1,848
Institutional 1,260 1,381 1,837 1,671 5,017
Total 1,306 1,539 2,956 3,092 6,865
Thailand:
Retail 1,031 882 5,091 4,722 4,862
Institutional 91 47 34 74 177
Total 1,122 929 5,125 4,796 5,039
Philippines:
Retail 21 244 1,026 1,183 883
Institutional 0 0 0 0 0
Total 21 244 1,026 1,183 883
World:
Retail 2,154 2,060 8,159 8,037 11,806
Institutional 4,379 2,392 2,368 2,194 6,555
Total 6,533 4,452 10,527 10,231 18,361
Source: USITC, Dataweb.

Note: Data are for HTS subheadings 2008.92.30 and 2008.92.35, canned fruit mixtures containing peaches or pears.

4-9
 After rising in 2003, U.S. exports of canned peaches declining steadily during 2004–06
(table 4.9). Exports to traditional markets Canada and Mexico rose in 2003 and 2004 in
response to supply disruptions in Greece, a competitor in these markets. However, exports
to these markets declined during 2005–06, as competition from China and Thailand
increased. Exports to nontraditional markets Thailand and China increased, as discussed
above.

Table 4.9 Canned peaches: U.S. exports, by principal markets, 2002–06

Market 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
Canada 4,635 5,678 9,210 8,437 5,609
Thailand 1,184 2,169 2,604 7,447 7,259
Mexico 5,924 13,938 12,436 6,500 4,063
China 0 2,100 2,980 1,267 2,835
Philippines 1,376 0 206 398 1,318
Other 2,745 16,756 6,597 3,826 1,679
Total 15,864 40,641 34,033 27,875 22,763
Value (1,000 US dollars)
Canada 4,784 6,034 9,078 8,065 5,916
Thailand 955 1,664 1,900 5,698 5,635
Mexico 3,662 8,444 9,713 5,148 3,760
China 0 1,581 2,374 1,188 2,556
Philippines 1,125 0 165 320 989
Other 2,032 15,587 6,588 3,362 1,545
Total 12,558 33,310 29,818 23,781 20,400
Unit value (dollars/metric ton)
Canada 1,032 1,063 986 956 1,055
Thailand 806 767 730 765 776
Mexico 618 606 781 792 925
China - 753 797 938 902
Philippines 817 - 802 803 750
Other 740 930 999 879 920
Average 792 820 876 853 896
Source: USITC, Dataweb.

U.S. exports of canned pears fell in 2003 but rose in each year thereafter through 2006
(table 4.10). Exports to Canada, traditionally the leading U.S. export market, increased
irregularly during the period. Thailand, a nontraditional market, became the leading
destination for U.S. canned pear exports in 2006. Thailand imports pears packed in
institutional size metal cans for repacking in retail size plastic cups and jars for export mainly
to the United States.37

U.S. exports of canned fruit mixtures of peaches or pears are not separately reported. U.S.
exports of all canned fruit mixtures, including those containing peaches and pears, fluctuated
irregularly during 2002–06 (table 4.11). Canada remained the leading destination during the
period.

37
Ibid.

4-10
Table 4.10 Canned pears: U.S. exports, by principal markets, 2002–06
Market 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
Thailand 1,379 761 1,992 3,808 6,576
Canada 2,435 2,387 3,449 3,855 3,409
Philippines 1,355 130 981 559 2,174
Mexico 4 15 81 45 647
Venezuela 0 0 0 0 117
Other 632 602 730 616 292
Total 5,806 3,896 7,233 8,884 13,215
Value (1,000 US dollars)
Thailand 1,009 583 1,606 3,107 5,423
Canada 2,417 2,464 3,319 3,793 3,516
Philippines 1,034 101 781 447 1,679
Mexico 4 12 71 36 600
Venezuela 0 0 0 0 131
Other 537 556 698 482 264
Total 5,001 3,716 6,474 7,865 11,613
Unit value (dollars/metric ton)
Thailand 732 766 806 816 825
Canada 993 1,032 962 984 1,031
Philippines 763 778 796 799 772
Mexico 813 807 879 793 927
Venezuela - - - - 1,115
Other 849 924 955 782 906
Average 861 954 895 885 879
Source: USITC, Dataweb.

Table 4.11 Canned fruit mixtures: U.S. exports, by principal markets, 2002–06
Market 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
Canada 2,970 3,099 6,820 12,715 10,034
Japan 1,204 1,232 1,257 1,034 896
United Kingdom 317 277 434 1,001 415
Taiwan 45 75 509 362 384
Korea 242 60 320 288 369
Other 4,797 3,807 3,334 3,155 2,227
Total 9,575 8,549 12,673 18,555 14,326
Value (1,000 US dollars)
Canada 3,993 4,227 9,781 16,357 13,625
Japan 1,302 1,461 1,445 1,214 1,064
United Kingdom 730 711 1,224 1,661 713
Taiwan 62 122 602 523 681
Korea 285 150 396 489 654
Other 5,646 4,547 3,980 3,752 3,284
Total 12,019 11,218 17,428 23,996 20,021
Unit value (dollars/metric ton)
Canada 1,344 1,364 1,434 1,286 1,358
Japan 1,081 1,186 1,150 1,174 1,186
United Kingdom 2,304 2,567 2,820 1,660 1,717
Taiwan 1,370 1,633 1,182 1,442 1,774
Korea 1,178 2,521 1,238 1,695 1,773
Other 1,177 1,194 1,194 1,189 1,475
Average 1,255 1,312 1,375 1,293 1,398
Source: USITC, Dataweb.

Note: Data are for HTS subheading 2008.92.4000, canned fruit mixtures of all types, including those of peaches and
pears.

4-11
U.S. Consumption
Consumption Trends/Patterns
U.S. consumption of canned peaches, canned pears, and canned fruit mixtures generally
declined during 2002–06, continuing a long term trend.38 The bulk of consumption
traditionally has been of products packed in metal cans destined for both the retail and
institutional market segments. Increasing consumer preference for fresh fruit and other
processed fruit products, as well as a shift in consumer preference to fruit packed in smaller
size plastic cups and jars contributed to the overall decline in U.S. consumption.39 Imports
captured an increasing share of the U.S. market during 2002–06, largely in the expanding
segment for fruit packed in plastic.

U.S. consumption of canned peaches fell 32 percent overall, from 517,356 mt in 2002 to
340,330 mt in 2006 (table 4.12). Imports accounted for 18 percent of consumption in 2006,
up markedly from the previous 4 years. U.S. consumption of canned pears fell steadily from
2002 to 2005, but was up overall, from 206,036 mt in 2002 to 212,069 mt in 2006
(table 4.12). Imports accounted for an increasing share of the market during the period,
peaking at 16 percent in 2006. Consumption of canned fruit mixtures fell irregularly from
2002 to 2006, totaling 256,035 mt in 2006 (table 4.12). Imports accounted for 7 percent of
the market in 2006, up from 2 percent in 2002.

Table 4.12 Canned peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures: U.S. domestic production, trade, and consumption, 2002–06
Ratio of Ratio of
imports to exports to
Product/year Production Imports Exports Consumption consumption production
Metric tons Percent
Canned peaches:
2002 472,800 60,420 15,864 517,356 12 3
2003 427,200 37,529 40,641 424,088 9 10
2004 441,600 35,774 34,033 443,341 8 8
2005 403,200 43,055 27,875 418,380 10 7
2006 302,400 60,693 22,763 340,330 18 7
Canned pears:
2002 199,200 12,642 5,806 206,036 6 3
2003 177,600 18,025 3,896 191,729 9 2
2004 175,200 23,617 7,233 191,584 12 4
2005 160,800 20,876 8,884 172,792 12 5
2006 192,000 33,284 13,215 212,069 16 6
Canned fruit mixtures:
2002 319,680 6,534 9,575 316,639 2 3
2003 291,600 4,453 8,549 287,504 2 3
2004 304,080 10,527 12,673 301,934 3 4
2005 273,600 10,232 18,555 265,277 4 7
2006 252,000 18,361 14,326 256,035 7 6
Sources: Production data for peaches and pears compiled from NASS, USDA, NonCitrus Fruit and Nuts, various
issues; production data for mixed fruit from the CCPA; imports and exports compiled from official statistics of the
U.S. Department of Commerce.

38
Fruit and Tree Nuts Situation and Outlook Yearbook, FTS-2006, October 2006.
39
Ibid., industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, February–October, 2007.

4-12
 Per capita consumption of canned peaches and canned pears fluctuated during 2002–06, but
ended lower, as consumer preferences shifted to fresh fruit and other fruit products, such as
tropical fruits and fruit mixtures (table 4.13). This decline followed a long term trend.

Table 4.13 Canned peaches, canned pears, canned fruit, and fresh noncitrus fruit: U.S. per capita consumption,
1980/81 and 2002/03–2006/07
Product 1980/81 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07
Pounds
Canned peaches 6.82 4.61 4.00 4.27 4.01 3.46
Canned pears 4.58 2.59 2.64 2.51 2.25 2.39
Canned fruit 21.07 14.75 14.98 14.82 14.34 13.12
Canned non-citrus fruit 62.29 75.87 77.41 79.67 78.15 79.33
Source: USDA, ERS, Fruit and Tree Nuts Situation and Outlook Yearbook, FTS-2007, October 2007.

Supply Chain and Market Segments

Canned peaches, canned pears, and canned fruit mixtures are all sold through established
marketing channels to institutional buyers (such as hotels, hospitals, prisons, governments,
club stores, and other foodservice outlets) and to retail purchasers (mainly grocery chains).
Canners sell their products either through company owned sales and distribution operations
or through brokers and distributors.40 Larger volume canners own distribution centers from
which products are shipped.41 For example, Del Monte uses one national broker to handle
a significant portion of their branded product sales, and also sells through a direct sales force
as well as through independent distributors (such as Sysco).42 Del Monte also reported a
recent shift in marketing focus from traditional grocers to mass merchandisers, such as
Wal-Mart.43 This shift reportedly has resulted in these mass merchandisers becoming larger
volume purchasers, which in turn has increased their purchasing influence and placed them
in a better position to demand lower or static prices, increased contributions to promotional
programs, special packaging forms, or to impose other requirements on canned fruit
suppliers.44

The market for canned peaches, canned pears, and canned fruit mixtures comprises distinct
segments. These segments are defined by the size of container and the nature of the label.
Smaller container sizes generally are referred to as the retail segment and larger container
sizes as the institutional segment.45 The label segments are either branded, which comprises
products with nationally advertised labels (such as Del Monte and Dole), or private label,
which consists mainly of store or distributor brands (such as Richfood and Safeway).

In the institutional market segment, buyers purchase products packed in larger container
sizes, mostly metal cans,46 which usually are lower in price (per pound) than are products

40
Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Washington, DC, January 31–February 7, 2007.
41
Del Monte Foods Company, Annual Report 2006, 9, 28.
42
Ibid.
43
Del Monte Foods Company, Annual Report 2006, 28.
44
Ibid.
45
These market segments generally correspond to the retail and institutional market channels; however
there is some overlap, as each market channel handles, to some degree, product packed in both container
segments.
46
The most common container size in the institutional segment is referred to as a No. 10 can, which holds
about 6–7 pounds, net weight, of product.

4-13
 packed in retail size containers. Product quality and consistency of cuts may be lower at this
price point.47 In the retail segment, products generally are packed in smaller containers,
including metal cans and plastic cups and jars.48

Data on U.S. canned peach processors’ sales, by market segment, are provided in table 4.14.
During the 2001/02 to 2005/06 marketing years, the share of U.S. canned peach sales to
institutional markets remained relatively stable and ranged between 43–47 percent of total
sales (table 4.14). The share of sales to the retail market generally fell during the period, to
35 percent of total sales in 2005/06 (table 4.14). Del Monte has reported that a limited
number of customers usually account for a large percentage of their total sales.49 In fiscal
year 2006, its leading customer, Wal-Mart, accounted for about 30 percent, and the10 largest
customers accounted for about 61 percent, of Del Monte’s overall sales.50 PCP reported that
a significant portion of its sales in 2006 were to one food service customer and to one retail
customer, and that its company brand canned fruit competes with private label brands of
other canners in the U.S. market, as well as with imported products from Dole.51

Table 4.14 Canned peaches: Sales by U.S. producers, by market segment, 2001/02 to 2005/06
Market segment
Marketing year Institutional/other Retail USDA purchases Exports Total
Quantity (metric tons)
2001/02 158,163 144,449 24,633 8,499 335,694
2002/03 168,592 137,755 36,510 20,224 363,081
2003/04 154,388 135,000 34,694 43,367 367,449
2004/05 177,714 124,490 36,988 33,265 372,457
2005/06 166,265 128,571 39,429 27,980 362,245
Share of total (percent)
2001/02 47 43 7 3 100
2002/03 46 38 10 5 99
2003/04 43 36 10 9 98
2004/05 46 38 10 5 99
2005/06 46 35 11 8 100
Source: California Canning Peach Association.

Note: The marketing year is from June 1 to May 31.

Sales of canned peaches to supermarkets increased between 2002 and 2006 for both Del
Monte, which principally markets domestically produced items, and for Dole, which
principally markets imported items.52 The recent increase in sales by both Del Monte and
Dole largely was accounted for by products packed in plastic cups and jars.53

47
Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Sacramento, CA, February 2, 2007.
48
Common containers in the retail segment include 8 ounce metal cans and 4 ounce plastic cups.
49
Del Monte Foods Company, Annual Report 2006, 27–28.
50
Ibid.
51
“Driven to Provide Superior Service,” 2006 Annual Report, Pacific Coast Producers, Lodi, CA,
financial statements as of May 31, 2006, 4, 17.
52
IRI Infoscan, provided by the CCPA.
53
U.S. industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, September–October, 2007.

4-14
 The share of canned pear consumption in the U.S. market during 2002–06, by market
segment, is shown in table 4.15. The retail and government segments generally declined
during the period, while the institutional segment (included in all other) increased.

Table 4.15 Canned pears: U.S. consumption, by market segment, 2002–06

Market segment 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Share of total (percent)
Supermarket 27 24 25 24 22
School lunch 16 12 10 10 12
Other USDA 2 4 1 1 1
All other 55 60 64 65 65
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Source: Washington-Oregon Canning Pear Association.

Note: Data include imports.

Data on supermarket sales of canned or bottled peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures are
presented in table 4.16. Supermarket sales of canned peaches declined from 123,474 mt,
valued at $313.7 million, in 2002 to 104,075 mt, valued at $302.8 million, in 2006
(table 4.16). Declining sales of fruit in small metal cans are believed to account for much of
this decline in volume, as consumer preference shifted from products packed in metal to
those packed in plastic cups and jars, which are higher in price.54 The average unit value of
annual sales increased from $2.54 in 2002 to $2.91 in 2006, reflecting this shift. Supermarket
sales of canned pears fell from 45,236 mt valued at $111.9 million in 2002 to 35,718 mt
valued at $100.3 million in 2006 (table 4.16). As with peaches, consumer demand has shifted
away from pears packed in metal cans to those packed in plastic containers.55 Supermarket
sales of canned mixed fruit fluctuated irregularly during 2002–06 (table 4.16).56

In terms of label segments for canned peaches, 48 percent of supermarket sales in 2006 were
Del Monte branded products, 20 percent Dole branded products, 1 percent each were Libby
and S&W branded products, 27 percent were private label products, and 3 percent were other
branded products.57 Del Monte and Dole sell predominantly own brand products; PCP’s
focus is on the private label segment.58

Prices
Prices for canned peaches, pears, and mixed fruit are determined in large part by prices paid
by canners for raw product. Prices paid for peaches for processing ranged between
$259–$263 per metric ton during 2002–05 but rose sharply to $304 per metric ton in 2006,

54
Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Sacramento, CA, February 2, 2007.
55
Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Sacramento, CA, February 1, 2007.
56
This category includes all fruit mixtures, not just those containing peaches and pears.
57
IRI Infoscan, provided by the California Canning Peach Association.
58
U.S. industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, September–October 2007.

4-15
Table 4.16 Canned peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures: Supermarket sales, 2002–06
Average price
Year Volume Value per kg
Metric tons 1,000 US dollars Dollars
Canned peaches
2002 123,474 313,672 2.54
2003 120,970 303,330 2.51
2004 111,412 280,972 2.52
2005 113,036 296,249 2.62
2006 104,075 302,835 2.91
Canned pears
2002 45,236 111,904 2.47
2003 44,313 107,760 2.43
2004 41,608 102,849 2.47
2005 40,197 104,231 2.59
2006 35,718 100,326 2.81
Canned mixed fruit
2002 86,871 251,820 2.91
2003 85,001 238,565 2.81
2004 80,100 226,530 2.83
2005 85,431 253,652 2.97
2006 78,907 247,258 3.13
Source: FI Analysis of Information Resources, Inc., InfoScan, provided by the American Institute of Food Distribution,
Elmwood Park, NJ.

a year in which domestic supplies were reduced because of weather damage (table 4.17).59
Prices paid for pears for processing trended downward during 2002–06, largely the result of
a decline in demand for canned pears (table 4.17).60

Table 4.17 Canning peaches and pears: Prices paid by processors, 2002–06
Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Dollars per metric ton
Peaches 259 261 263 261 304
Pears 234 210 207 206 202
Sources: California Canning Peach Association; Washington-Oregon Canning Pear Association.

Retail prices for canned peaches, canned pears, and canned fruit mixtures, represented by the
average unit value of supermarket sales, are provided in table 4.16. These values generally
rose for all three products during 2002–06, largely reflecting the shift from products packed
in traditional metal cans to those packed in plastic cups and jars.61

59
Ibid.
60
Ibid.
61
Ibid.

4-16
Competitive Factors
Government Programs, Regulatory Compliance, and Trade
Practices

Government Programs

U.S. canned peach, canned pear, and canned fruit mixture producers, and the growers that
supply them, benefit from government programs. The main program affecting the canning
sector of the U.S. industry is USDA’s Food Purchase Program for Fruit and Vegetable
Products. Included in this program are purchases for various federal food assistance
programs and the National School Lunch program.62 Purchases tend to fluctuate widely from
year to year.63 In 2006, USDA program purchases totaled $20 million for canned peaches,
$20 million for canned pears, and $8 million for canned fruit mixtures.64

U.S. cling peach growers benefitted from a tree pull program instituted in 2005, with funding
contributions from the USDA.65 This program followed previous industry financed tree pulls.
The USDA committed $5 million in funding, including administrative costs. Growers
received $100 per ton for peaches delivered to processors in 2005 from the same acreage that
was removed, subject to a maximum of $1,700 per acre and a minimum of $500 per acre.

The U.S. government provides agricultural technology extension services through a system
administered by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
(CSREES) of the USDA.66 CSREES provides funding for agricultural research and
development. One recent research program has focused on the development of newer tree
varieties better suited to growing in California.67

The primary source of water for California Central Valley agricultural crops is controlled by
state run programs and policies. Although not an industry specific program, the cost and
availability of water is integral to the growing and canning of fruit in California, where
increasing demand for fresh water by non-agricultural users is placing additional pressure
on availability for the canning and growing industries. Water costs in the Central Valley and
Coastal areas are variable,68 ranging from $800-$2,000 per hectare.69 Climatic variations that

62
Under this program, the USDA announces its intention of purchasing certain food items and those firms
(including fruit canners) having expressed an interest in selling products to the USDA are allowed to bid on
contracts to provide such products. All firms must comply with stipulated USDA and other federal rules and
regulations, and must be registered with AMS’s Central Contractor Registration System prior to bidding.
Contracts put out for bid are usually specific as to product container size, style of pack, quantities to be
purchased, and the price to be paid for the product. USDA ‘direct buys’ account for 20 percent of school
lunch program purchases. The remaining 80 percent of school lunch program purchases are direct purchases
made between a school system and a canner or distributor, and these purchases must be of U.S. product. See
‘Fruit and Vegetable Programs - Commodity Procurement,’ Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA,
Washington, DC, http://www.ams.gov, accessed March 20, 2007.
63
USDA, AMS.
64
Ibid.
65
70 Fed. Reg. 67305 (November 4, 2005).
66
For more detailed information, see http://www.csrees.usda.gov/Extension.
67
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Sacramento, CA, January 31–February 3, 2007.
68
Some farmers are reported to be paying only $2-$20 per acre foot for water, and others, buying water
from projects built by the Bureau of Reclamation, range from $200-500 per acre-foot. See “Energy Down the
Drain - The Hidden Costs of California’s Water Supply,” National Resources Defense Council,

4-17
lead to fluctuations in water availability coupled with environmental protection issues likely
will continue to affect the cost of water to canned fruit industries in California.70

The U.S. canned peach, pear, and mixed fruit industries are affected by government
marketing orders, although U.S. peach industry officials state that such orders have no
impact on raw product supply.71 In 2006, an existing Federal Marketing Order (Order) on
fresh pears was amended to include Bartlett pears grown in Washington and Oregon for
processing. Through a mandatory assessment, funds received are used by the Processed Pear
Committee for such activities as insuring standardization of packaging and containers, and
the authorization of production and marketing research, and advertising.72 Although the
Order monitors the flow of fresh products to the fresh and canning market, it does not impact
quantities available for processing.

Regulatory Compliance

U.S. canned peach, pear, and mixed fruit processors must comply with a number of state and
federal regulations relating to environmental protection and food safety. Environmental
protection regulations mainly involve waste water treatment. Food safety issues are a
longstanding concern of the domestic canned fruit industry. PCP has contracted with the
American Institute of Baking73 to evaluate its compliance with all food safety regulations and
practices through food safety audits.74 This canner has reported that costs associated with
meeting environmental rules and regulations may result in lower overall production costs
because fewer resources are used.75 The overall impact of regulatory compliance includes
not only the direct cost of meeting local, state, or federal regulations, but also the cost of
securing third party review and evaluation of production processes throughout the complete
grower-through-processor chain of production.

Trade Practices

The primary U.S. trade practice affecting the canned fruit industry is import tariffs. Current
tariffs on canned peaches, canned pears, and canned fruit mixtures are 17 percent,
15.3 percent, and 14.9 percent ad valorem, respectively. These duties, which apply to fruit
packed in all forms of airtight containers, are among the highest general duty rates for

http://www.nrdc.org, accessed September 25, 2007.

69
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Sacramento, CA, January 31–February 2, 2007. Fed
by the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the primary source of water
for agricultural use where peaches and pears are grown and canned, but is also the major water source for an
estimated two thirds of the state’s total population.“California Issues - A Briefing on California Water
Issues,” Water Education Foundation, http://www.water-ed/org/cabriefing.asp, accessed September 29, 2007.
70
“California Issues - A Briefing on California Water Issues,” Water Education Foundation,
http://www.water-ed/org/cabriefing.asp, accessed September 29, 2007.
71
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Washington, DC, September 12, 2007.
72
Information provided by the Pacific Northwest Canned Pear Service, Yakima, WA, April 10, 2007.
73
The American Institute of Baking (AIB) is a non-profit corporation that annually inspects production
and warehousing facilities; the inspections are often unplanned. The inspector scores processors based on
strict compliance to all food safety regulations and practices.” See “PCP Annual Quality Inspection from
AIB,” Health and Safety, Pacific Coast Producers, http://www.pcoastp.com, accessed July 12, 2007.
74
“PCP Annual Quality Inspection from AIB,” Health and Safety, Pacific Coast Producers,
http://www.pcoastp.com, accessed July 12, 2007.
75
Ibid.

4-18
agricultural products. According to Del Monte, the existing U.S. duties on imported canned
peaches, pears, and mixed fruit allow domestic canners to maintain higher prices in the U.S.
market.76

Market Factors

Input Costs and Availability/Cost Structure

The U.S. canned peach, canned pear, and canned mixed fruit industries generally are at a
competitive disadvantage to foreign competitors regarding input costs, particularly labor.
The United States has the highest factory wage rate ($20 per hour) and the second highest
field wage rate ($14.30 per hour) among major global producers.77 Declining availability of
inputs, including labor, land, and water is also an issue, both for the growing and processing
sectors. Rising input costs and declining availability affected the performance of the industry
during 2002–06 and contributed to efforts to restructure in order to increase
competitiveness.78 Such efforts included tree pulls, technological improvements in
processing plants, and importing of processed products.

Processing Technology

U.S. canners of peaches, pears, and mixed fruit operate highly efficient plants using state-of-
the-art equipment and the most advanced production processes.79 Most of these canners
operate at or near full production capacity throughout the 6 to 8 week production season.80
Since 2002, several domestic canners invested in their production facilities. In an effort to
increase and sustain competitiveness, one California peach canner opened a new, state-of-
the-art processing plant in 2003, reported to be the first peach processing plant built from the
ground up since the 1970s.81 Other California peach processing plants are also reported to
have been updated to some extent in recent years,82 including innovations to the fruit
receiving process, the use of water flumes for transporting raw fruit into and throughout the
plant, the installation of clean fruit pitting machines,83 and the addition of numerous color
sorters.84 One canner reported a recent construction budget of approximately $10 million.85
One canner reported it recently made numerous technological improvements to its canneries
and continues to invest to modernize,86 and another installed a plastic cup line in 2006.87

76
Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Sacramento, CA, January 30–February 2, 2007.
77
Data presented at the 8th World Canned Deciduous Fruit Conference, Sacramento, California,
April 15–19, 2007.
78
U.S. industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, January–October, 2007.
79
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Sacramento, CA, January 30–February 2, 2007.
80
Ibid.
81
“New Peach Plant,” In The Kitchen, California Fruit and Tomato Kitchens, March 2003, 1.
82
Ibid.
83
‘Clean’ pitters are those that are lubricated with water rather than synthetics, which leaves pitted
peaches in a cleaner, non-oily state.
84
“New Peach Plant,” In The Kitchen, California Fruit and Tomato Kitchens, March 2003, 1.
85
Ibid.
86
“PCP Improvements,” News, Pacific Coast Producers,, http://www.pcoastp.com, accessed
July 12, 2007.
87
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, November 2007.

4-19
Product Innovation

Product innovations allow canned fruit processors, wholesalers, and retailers to capture a
larger market segment, not only through new product lines, but also through the expansion
of existing lines.88 An estimated 4,500 new fruit and fruit containing products were
introduced globally in 2004, and significant future growth is projected for this market.89 With
canned fruit in particular, many new products have new ingredients added or new
packaging.90 U.S. canners of peaches, pears, and mixed fruit are packing, to some extent,
products in those container sizes (retail) and styles of pack (metal cans with pull top lids,
plastic jars and single serve cups, in light syrup) with the greatest market demand.91 Some
canners are having product in plastic co-packed by another firm for them.92 As with most
fruit and vegetable processing, canners tend to concentrate most production in those product
lines which generate the greatest sales revenue. Also, all processors are offering a broad line
of products (e.g., canned pears, peaches, fruit cocktail, mixed fruit, and tropical fruit
mixtures) in various container sizes, in different styles of pack (e.g., in heavy and light
syrup, with Splenda), and in various cuts (e.g., peach and pear halves, sliced, diced, cubed).
However, companies may incur significant development and marketing costs in introducing
new products, even when generating increased revenues.93

Exchange Rates

The position of the U.S. dollar vis-à-vis values of currencies of major foreign suppliers to
the U.S. market indirectly affects the prices at which all products may be sold in the U.S.
market. Since 2002, the U.S. dollar has fallen relative to the currency value in Thailand, the
EU, and more recently China. This contributes to higher prices for products from those
countries being sold in the U.S. market and sustains market prices for U.S. canned products
as well.

88
“New Product Development Trends in the Fruit Sector,” Michigan State University Product Center for
Agriculture and Natural Resources, the Strategic Marketing Institute, Working paper No. 1-102605, 2005.
89
Ibid.
90
Ibid.
91
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Sacramento, CA, January 30–February 2, 2007.
92
See Del Monte Foods Company, Annual Report 2005, 29.
93
Del Monte Foods Company, Annual Report 2006, 24–25.

4-20
Bibliography
Abate, Getachew. “New product Development Trends in the Fruit Sector.” Working Paper No. 1-102605,
The Strategic Marketing Center, MSU Product Center For Agriculture and Natural Resources,
2005.

California Cling Peach Association. Information provided to the U.S. International Trade Commission in
connection with inv. No. 332-485, Canned Peaches, Pears, and Fruit Mixtures: Conditions of
Competition Between U.S. and Principal Foreign Supplier Industries, May 14, 2007.

Del Monte Foods Company. “Form 10-K, For the Fiscal Year ended April 30, 2006.” San Francisco, CA.
2006.

Department of Trade, Thailand Ministry of Trade. Written submission to the U.S. International Trade
Commission in connection with inv. No. 332-485, Canned Peaches, Pears, and Fruit Mixtures:
Conditions of Competition Between U.S. and Principal Foreign Supplier Industries, July 23,
2007.

Global Trade Information Service, Inc. (GTIS). World Trade Atlas Database.

“Nutrient Conservation in Canned, Frozen, and Fresh Foods.” A Report for the Steel Packaging Council
by the Department of Food Service and Human Nutrition, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign. October 1997.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Economic Research Service (ERS), Fruit and Tree Nuts
Situation and Outlook Yearbook. Washington, DC: USDA, October 2006.

4-21
CHAPTER 5
The Industry in China
China is the world’s leading producer of fresh peaches and pears. In 2006, China’s fresh
peach production totaled 7.5 million mt, representing 44 percent of the world total.1 China’s
fresh pear production totaled 12.0 million mt that year, or 61 percent of the global total.2
However, only a small fraction of this output is processed into the products of concern in this
study because of an historical and overwhelming preference in the Chinese domestic market
for fresh product, the predominance of varieties other than those typically used for
processing and traded in global markets, and the relative youth of China’s processing sector.
China’s export growth has been remarkable during the period under review, increasing by
more than 100 percent for both canned peaches and pears. China traditionally has focused
on nearby markets, such as Japan and Korea, but has increased exports to other markets in
recent years, such as those in North America, Europe, and the Middle East.3 In 2006, China
was the third leading global producer of canned peaches, the third leading global producer
of canned pears, and the fourth leading global producer of canned fruit mixtures (table 2.1;
table 2.5; table 2.9). China was the second leading global exporter of both canned peaches
and canned pears that year (table 2.3; table 2.7).

China’s main competitive advantages in global canned fruits markets include an abundance
of relatively low cost raw materials and labor, a large domestic market, proximity to its
major Asian markets, the use of hand labor to produce high quality products, a focus on
producing for exports, and an advantageous exchange rate vis-à-vis those in major global
export markets. Major competitive disadvantages include limited production of peach and
pear varieties that are demanded in some foreign markets, a land tenure system that
maintains small scale, household farms, a widely scattered, relatively small scale processing
sector, rising raw material and labor costs, small current domestic market demand, a
relatively low utilization of machinery, increasing environmental protection and food safety
costs, and a lack of recognized brands. Chinese industry representatives expect that the
industry will undergo a period of consolidation, both in the growing and processing sectors,
increase mechanization in the processing sector, and increase its focus on the growing
domestic market.4

Production
Despite falling somewhat in 2006 from the previous year’s level, China’s production of fresh
peaches increased by nearly two thirds during 2002–06 (table 5.1). The trend resulted from
an increase in the area harvested and rising yields. The great bulk of the increase was sold
to the domestic fresh market. It is estimated that yellow peaches, the principal variety used

1
FAO, FAOSTAT Database.
2
Ibid.
3
GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.
4
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China,
September 10–18, 2007.

5-1
 for canning,5 account for less than 5 percent of total fresh peach production.6 Plantings of
yellow peach trees have increased in recent years in response to rising domestic and export
demand of canned yellow peaches.7

China’s production of fresh pears rose steadily during 2002–06, by slightly more than one
third. The increase is attributable to an expansion in harvested area, mainly in response to
an expanding domestic fresh market, and to rising yields (table 5.2). The bulk of China’s
pear production is of crunchy varieties that generally are not in great demand for processing
for global markets.8

Production of fresh peaches used for processing generally increased during 2002–06;
however, this use accounted for less than 5 percent of total peach output in 2006 (table 5.1).
Fresh pears used for processing also increased during the period under review, but accounted
for an even smaller share of total output (less than 1 percent in 2006) (table 5.2).9

Table 5.1 Fresh and canned peaches: Chinese production, area harvested, yield, and deliveries to processors,
2002–06
Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Fresh peaches:
Production (1,000 mt) 5,262 6,182 7,043 7,833 7,510
Area harvested (1,000 has) 550 610 603 683 683
Yield (mt/ha) 9.6 10.1 10.6 11.5 11.0
Canned peaches:
Fresh peaches delivered to processors (1,000 mt) (a) 315 308 309 344
Production (1,000 mt, net weight) 210 210 205 207 234
Sources: Fresh peaches: FAOSTAT; canned peaches: USDA, FAS, GAIN reports; Commission estimates.
a
Not available.

5
About three quarters of Chinese canned peach production is of yellow peaches. USDA, FAS, China,
Peoples Republic of, Canned Deciduous Fruit Annual 2005, March 16, 2005, 4.
6
USDA, FAS, China, Peoples Republic of, Canned Deciduous Fruit Annual 2005, March 16, 2005, 4.
The bulk of canned white peaches are exported to Japan and other Asian markets. Chinese industry officials,
interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China, September 10–18, 2007.
7
USDA, FAS, China, Peoples Republic of, Canned Deciduous Fruit Annual 2006, June 16, 2006, 4.
USDA, FAS, China, Peoples Republic of, Canned Deciduous Fruit Annual 2007, April 17, 2007, 4. Chinese
industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China, September 10–18, 2007.
8
Traditional canned pear export markets, such as the United States and the EU, prefer Bartlett and
Williams pear varieties.
9
Data are not available on the amount of fruit delivered to processors of mixtures.

5-2
Table 5.2 Fresh and canned pears: Chinese production, area harvested, yield, and deliveries to processors,
2002–06
Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Fresh pears:
Production (1,000 mt) 9,432 9,921 10,767 11,437 11,988
Area harvested (1,000 acres) 1,051 1,070 1,158 1,208 1,188
Yield (mt/acre) 8.9 9.2 9.3 9.4 10.1
Canned pears:
Fresh pears delivered to processors (1,000 mt) (a) 61 80 80 95
Production (1,000 mt, net weight) 38 38 50 50 59
Sources: Fresh pears: FAOSTAT; canned pears: USDA, FAS, GAIN reports; Commission estimates.
a
Not available.

Canned peach production in China increased irregularly during 2002–06, totaling 234,000 mt
in 2006 (table 5.1). Production rose by 13 percent in 2006 compared with the previous year’s
level. The rise in production resulted from an increase in both domestic demand and export
market demand.10 Canned pear production in China increased by 55 percent during 2002–06
and reached 59,000 mt in 2006 (table 5.2). The increase resulted from the same factors
affecting canned peaches.11 Production of canned fruit mixtures in China rose from 6,000 mt
to 27,000 mt during 2003–06 (table 5.3). Although the increase was substantial, it occurred
from a relatively small base and production levels are relatively small. The increase resulted
from the same factors affecting canned peaches and canned pears.12

Table 5.3 Canned fruit mixtures: Chinese production, 2002–06

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Canned fruit mixtures:
Production (1,000 mt) 6 6 10 19 27
Sources: USDA, FAS, GAIN reports; Commission estimates.

Structure and Organization of the Industry

The Chinese canned fruit industry comprises a large number of relatively small growers and
processors compared with other major global producers. Production facilities also are more
widely scattered and the distance between growing and processing facilities is greater
compared with most major global competitors.

The Chinese peach and pear growing sector consists of thousands of individual growers
typically holding rights to land in parcels of several mu (0.667 hectare).13 Formal ownership
of land is held by collectives, which allocate land use rights to individual farmers.14 Rights
generally are granted for a 30-year term. Farmers are not organized into cooperatives;

10
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China,
September 10–September 18, 2007.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
13
Chinese industry official, interview by Commission staff, Zhejiang, China, September 15, 2007.
14
USDA, ERS, The Ongoing Reform of Land Tenure Policies in China.

5-3
however, individual holdings may be organized into larger production bases and coordinated
by local governments or processors. Typical peach and pear orchards in China are either
relatively small consolidations of household holdings of several dozen mu or, to a lesser
extent, larger production bases of several hundred mu.15 Major consolidation has not
occurred yet in the Chinese peach and pear growing sector. The current land tenure system
has been cited by Chinese processors and independent analysts as a constraint to industry
consolidation and integration.16

The principal fresh peach production areas in China include the provinces of Anhui,
Jianghsu, Shandong, Henan, Dalian, and Hebei.17 Yellow peach production is concentrated
in Anhui, Dalian, Shandong, and Zhejiang provinces.18 The province of Anhui has been
gaining in the share of yellow peach production in recent years, owing mainly to lower land
and labor costs.19 Primary fresh pear production areas in China include Hebei (31 percent of
the total quantity in 2005), Liaoning (7 percent), and Sichuan (7 percent).20

In 1998, the Chinese canned fruit sector comprised approximately 1,000 canneries, 200 of
which were considered to be large or medium in size.21 Four hundred canneries were
authorized by the Chinese government to export at that time. Most of the canneries were
state owned enterprises prior to a major privatization in the late 1990s. Although current data
on the total number of canneries are not available, it is believed that the number has declined
during the period under review, and the number of canneries producing for export totals
about 40.22

Chinese canned fruit processors generally are located near the source of their fruit supplies.
However, raw fruit may be transported as far as 1,000 kilometers.23 Most processing
facilities are located in the provinces of Shandong, Hebei, and Zhejiang.24 Chinese fruit
canneries generally process a range of products, including a variety of fruits, vegetables, and
meat products.25 This enables the canneries to operate for longer periods throughout the year.
The canned peach and pear season generally runs for about 3 months during July through
September. Chinese fruit growing and processing sectors are not integrated; ownership of
the processing sector is mostly private.26

15
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China,
September 10–18, 2007.
16
Ibid. O’Brien, “Developments in the Chinese Fruit and Vegetable Economy: Implications for Trade,”
12–14.
17
Chinese industry official, interview by Commission staff, Beijing, China, September 10, 2007.
18
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China,
September 10–18, 2007.
19
Ibid.
20
USDA, ERS, “Briefing Rooms, China Agricultural and Economic Data: Provincial Data.”
21
USDA, FAS, China, Peoples Republic of, Canned Deciduous Fruit Annual 1998, September 15, 1998,
3.
22
Chinese industry official, interview by Commission staff, Zhejiang, China, September 15, 2007.
23
Ibid.
24
USDA, FAS, China, Peoples Republic of, Canned Deciduous Fruit Annual 1998, September 15, 1998,
2.
25
Ibid. Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission Staff, various locations in China,
September 10–18, 2007.
26
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China,
September 10–18, 2007.

5-4
Consumption
Canned fruit consumption in China traditionally has been relatively low. Per capita canned
fruit consumption has been approximately 0.6 kilograms (1.3 pounds).27 However,
consumption has been rising in recent years. China’s market for canned fruit consists of
differentiated niches. Traditionally, consumption has been supplied mainly by domestic
production, owing to domestic market preferences. Imports, which account for a small share
of consumption, typically are destined for the baked goods industry (which uses canned
peaches for decoration), for hotels and restaurants, and for supermarkets that mainly cater
to expatriates.28 Chinese consumers tend to consider imported products and foreign brands
to be of higher quality compared with domestic products.29

China’s consumption of canned peaches generally increased during 2002–06 (table 5.4).30
The rise resulted from rising income levels and increased consumer demand for convenience
foods by an increasingly urban population. Although China is, by far, a net exporter of
canned peaches, global industry sources concur that it likely will become a net importer in
the coming years.31 Chinese consumers prefer canned peaches, as well as other canned fruit,
in clear glass jars.32

Table 5.4 Canned peaches: Chinese domestic production, trade, and consumption, 2002–06
Apparent Ratio of imports Ratio of exports
Year Production Imports Exports consumption to consumption to production
Metric tons, net weight Percent
2002 210,000 1,295 45,813 165,482 1 22
2003 210,000 4,174 80,517 133,654 3 38
2004 205,000 5,135 71,088 139,047 4 35
2005 207,000 2,195 77,417 131,778 2 37
2006 234,000 3,878 92,417 145,461 3 39
Sources: USDA, FAS, GAIN reports; GTIS, World Trade Atlas; Commission estimates.

Chinese consumption of canned pears and canned fruit mixtures increased during 2002–06
(table 5.5; table 5.6), for the same reasons cited for rising canned peach consumption. The
great bulk of canned pear consumption was supplied by domestic production; a substantial
share of canned mixtures consumption was supplied by imports. The same market dynamics
generally affect canned pears and canned fruit mixtures as those affecting canned peaches.

27
Chinese industry official, interview by Commission staff, Beijing, September 10, 2007.
28
USDA, FAS, China, Peoples Republic of, Canned Deciduous Fruit Annual 2007, April 17, 2007, 5–6.
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China, September 10–18,
2007.
29
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China,
September 10–18, 2007.
30
Apparent consumption data for 2002 are based on estimated production levels, which may be
overstated.
31
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China,
September 10–18, 2007. Spanish and Greek industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various
locations in Spain and Greece, August 6–10, 2007.
32
USDA, FAS, China, Peoples Republic of, Canned Deciduous Fruit Annual 2007, April 17, 2007, 5.
Commission survey of supermarkets in China, September 10–18, 2007.

5-5
Table 5.5 Canned pears: Chinese domestic production, trade, and consumption, 2002–06
Apparent Ratio of imports Ratio of exports
Year Production Imports Exports consumption to consumption to production
Metric tons, net weight Percent
2002 38,000 15 14,916 23,099 (a) 39
2003 38,000 1 22,713 15,288 (a) 60
a
2004 50,000 38 29,984 20,054 () 60
2005 50,000 4 34,567 15,437 (a) 69
2006 59,000 133 36,079 23,054 (a) 61
Sources: USDA, FAS, GAIN reports; GTIS, World Trade Atlas; Commission estimates.
a
Less than 0.5 percent.

Table 5.6 Canned fruit mixtures: Chinese domestic production, trade, and consumption, 2002–06
Apparent Ratio of imports Ratio of exports
Year Production Imports Exports consumption to consumption to production
Metric tons, net weight Percent
2002 6,000 845 3,150 3,695 23 53
2003 6,000 491 4,429 2,062 24 74
2004 10,000 913 7,809 3,104 29 78
2005 19,000 771 15,964 3,807 20 84
2006 27,000 2,336 20,738 8,598 27 77
Sources: USDA, FAS, GAIN reports; GTIS, World Trade Atlas; Commission estimates.

A portion of canned peach and canned pear imports are used in the production in China of
canned fruit mixtures.33

Trade
China’s trade in the subject products has increased substantially in recent years, particularly
with respect to exports. Increased trade resulted from rising production and exports in
response to expanding global demand and weather related effects on traditional global
suppliers as well as to increased imports to supply differentiated domestic market niches.
Chinese and other industry sources expect such trade to continue to increase.34

Exports
China’s exports of canned peaches more than doubled during 2002–06, with the most
significant increase occurring in 2003 (table 5.7). Such exports totaled $76 million in 2006.
Japan was the leading export market in each year during the period; however, exports to
other markets increased substantially during the period while exports to Japan grew by a
lesser percent than those to the United States, Russia, and Korea. The United States and

33
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China,
September 10–18, 2007.
34
Ibid. Spanish and Greek industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in Spain
and Greece, August 6–10, 2007.

5-6
Table 5.7 Canned peaches: Chinese exports, by principal markets, 2002–06
Market 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
Japan 32,144 32,561 36,733 37,931 38,485
United States 3,477 4,674 8,626 14,009 20,347
Russia 57 2,810 4,960 3,918 6,555
Yemen 3,539 2,037 3,890 2,472 4,930
Korea 1,552 1,159 1,178 2,739 3,710
Other 5,044 37,276 15,701 16,348 18,390
Total 45,813 80,517 71,088 77,417 92,417
Value (1,000 US dollars)
Japan 28,947 28,884 33,113 34,548 35,615
United States 1,858 2,523 5,337 9,144 14,114
Russia 39 1,826 3,098 2,530 4,862
Yemen 2,081 1,255 2,424 1,524 3,369
Korea 1,106 872 846 2,077 2,882
Other 3,227 25,414 11,835 12,425 14,907
Total 37,257 60,775 56,653 62,248 75,748
Unit value (dollars/metric ton)
Japan 901 887 901 911 925
United States 534 540 619 653 694
Russia 684 650 625 646 742
Yemen 588 616 623 617 683
Korea 713 752 718 758 777
Other 640 682 754 760 811
Average 813 755 797 804 820
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas.

Russia emerged as significant markets for China during the period. Japan is a market for
canned white peaches, while the United States is a market for canned yellow peaches.35
Chinese exports of canned peaches to the United States are destined for two distinct markets.
The first consists mainly of relatively low quality, irregular canned peach slices and dices
in large cans sold to the institutional market.36 The second consists mainly of higher value
plastic cups, which Chinese exporters are supplying to the United States under both
nationally branded and private labels.37 China’s exports of canned pears also rose
substantially during 2002–06, rising 196 percent in value to $23 million in 2006 (table 5.8).
The bulk of the increase was accounted for by the U.S. market, which accounted for a
leading 47 percent of the total value in 2006. China’s exports of canned fruit mixtures also
registered a substantial increase during the period under review, rising from $2 million in
2002 to $17 million in 2006 (table 5.9). Substantial increases were registered in most
markets. The United States was the leading market during the period, accounting for slightly
more than one third of the total value in 2006.

35
USDA, FAS, China, Peoples Republic of, Canned Deciduous Fruit Annual 2007, April 17, 2007, 4.
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China, September 10–18,
2007.
36
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China,
September 10–18, 2007.
37
Ibid.

5-7
Table 5.8 Canned pears: Chinese exports, by principal markets, 2002–06
Market 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
United States 6,792 10,569 12,428 14,094 17,570
Japan 423 352 886 1,951 2,209
Germany 1,835 4,039 5,004 4,135 2,647
Thailand 850 0 1,577 421 2,009
Greece 2,342 2,050 1,155 3,146 2,249
Other 2,674 5,703 8,934 10,820 9,395
Total 14,916 22,713 29,984 34,567 36,079
Value (1,000 US dollars)
United States 3,280 4,869 5,555 6,673 10,858
Japan 335 322 719 1,563 1,939
Germany 936 2,157 2,797 2,402 1,663
Thailand 575 0 1,036 302 1,478
Greece 1,240 1,037 571 1,501 1,055
Other 1,442 3,001 4,956 6,282 6,121
Total 7,809 11,387 15,634 18,723 23,115
Unit value (dollars/metric ton)
United States 483 461 447 473 618
Japan 792 915 812 801 878
Germany 510 534 559 581 628
Thailand 676 - 657 717 736
Greece 529 182 64 139 112
Other 539 526 555 581 652
Average 524 501 521 542 641
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas.

Table 5.9 Canned fruit mixtures: Chinese exports, by principal markets, 2002–06
Market 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
United States 1,690 1,732 2,569 3,151 8,741
Canada 263 413 680 2,071 2,274
Japan 506 150 283 2,082 1,206
New Zealand 1 956 323 134 910
Germany 0 208 620 1,131 1,048
Other 690 970 3,334 7,395 6,559
Total 3,150 4,429 7,809 15,964 20,738
Value (1,000 US dollars)
United States 997 1,034 1,568 1,980 5,799
Canada 179 273 637 2,543 2,830
Japan 418 171 304 2,121 1,279
New Zealand 1 669 243 155 803
Germany 0 127 440 787 716
Other 506 638 2,404 5,532 5,570
Total 2,101 2,913 5,597 13,119 17,052
Unit value (dollars/metric ton)
United States 590 597 610 628 663
Canada 681 661 937 1,228 1,245
Japan 826 1,140 1,074 1,019 1,061
New Zealand 1,000 700 752 1,157 882
Germany - 611 710 696 683
Other 733 658 721 748 849
Average 667 658 717 822 822
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas.

Note: Data are for HTS subheading 2008.92, canned fruit mixtures of all types, including those of peaches and pears.

5-8
 Imports
China currently is a relatively minor importer of the canned fruit of concern in this report.
China’s imports of canned peaches increased irregularly during 2002–06 and amounted to
$3.9 million in 2006 (table 5.10). The United States was the leading supplier during
2003–06, accounting for 60 percent of the total value in 2006. Most imports are used by the
baking industry for garnishes and decorations, with lesser amounts marketed through
supermarkets catering to expatriates and used in the production of fruit packed in plastic cups
for export to the United States.38

China’s imports of canned pears totaled $159,000 in 2006 (table 5.11), while its imports of
canned mixtures totaled $1.2 million (table 5.12). The main markets for these products are
the baking industry and supermarkets catering to expatriates.39

Table 5.10 Canned peaches: Chinese imports, by principal sources, 2002–06

Source 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metic tons)
United States 5 2,049 3,783 1,346 2,244
South Africa 658 1,337 1,040 653 1,271
China 603 46 36 16 159
Greece 11 556 238 148 156
Philippines 6 19 0 0 18
Other 12 167 38 32 30
Total 1,295 4,174 5,135 2,195 3,878
Value (1,000 US dollars)
United States 6 2,064 3,541 995 2,305
South Africa 566 1,210 1,044 683 1,236
China 127 41 23 14 140
Greece 20 815 217 130 121
Philippines 7 23 0 0 12
Other 16 206 31 25 46
Total 741 4,359 4,855 1,848 3,860
Unit value (dollars/metric ton)
United States 1,200 1,007 936 739 1,027
South Africa 860 905 1,004 1,046 972
China 211 891 639 875 881
Greece 1,818 1,466 912 878 776
Philippines 1,167 1,211 - - 667
Other 1,333 1,234 816 781 1,533
Average 572 1,044 945 842 995
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas.

38
USDA, FAS, China, Peoples Republic of, Canned Deciduous Fruit Annual 2007, April 17, 2007, 5–6.
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China, September 10–18,
2007.
39
Ibid.

5-9
Table 5.11 Canned pears: Chinese imports, by principal sources, 2002–06
Source 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
Korea 0 0 0 0 42
Greece 0 0 0 0 77
South Africa 2 0 36 3 10
France 0 0 0 0 2
United States 13 1 1 1 1
Other 0 0 0 0 1
Total 15 1 38 4 133
Value (1,000 US dollars)
Korea 0 0 0 1 104
Greece 0 0 0 0 36
South Africa 1 0 35 3 10
France 0 0 0 0 3
United States 13 0 1 1 3
Other 0 0 0 0 4
Total 14 0 36 5 159
Unit value (dollars/metric ton)
Korea - - - - 2,476
Greece - - - - 468
South Africa 500 - 972 1,000 1,000
France - - - - 1,500
United States 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 3,000
Other - - - - -
Average 933 0 947 1,250 1,195
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas.

Table 5.12 Canned fruit mixtures: Chinese imports, by principal sources, 2002–06
Source 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
Philippines 665 327 538 544 2,084
Thailand 120 103 363 207 230
Korea 0 0 0 0 4
United States 17 1 6 2 5
Malaysia 1 0 0 0 9
Other 42 60 6 18 4
Total 845 491 913 771 2,336
Value (1,000 US dollars)
Philippines 349 284 426 286 1,010
Thailand 94 71 220 116 127
Korea 0 0 0 0 10
United States 19 3 7 2 9
Malaysia 1 0 0 0 3
Other 72 82 23 16 20
Total 536 441 676 421 1,178
Unit value (dollars/metric ton)
Philippines 525 869 792 526 485
Thailand 783 689 606 560 552
Korea - - - - 2,500
United States 1,118 3,000 1,167 1,000 1,800
Malaysia 1,000 - - - 333
Other 1,714 1,367 3,833 889 5,000
Average 634 898 740 546 504
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas.

Note: Data are for HTS subheading 2008.92, canned fruit mixtures of all types, including those of peaches and pears.

5-10
Competitive Factors
Government Programs, Regulatory Compliance, and Trade
Practices

Government Programs

The focus of China’s agricultural policies has shifted from centralized planning to market
development.40 Recent policies involve tax cuts and rebates, infrastructure development,
credit, research and development, and environmental and food safety. The Chinese
government eliminated agricultural taxes on agricultural households in 2005.41 Taxes
typically were 8.4 percent of the value of production.

The Chinese government provides for rural infrastructure development, including such items
as irrigation, roads, energy, and research and development facilities. Funding for rural
infrastructure has been increasing in recent years.42 Most of China’s canned fruit industry is
located in eastern provinces, which possess relatively modern infrastructure owing to
industrial development in the region.43

Rural households obtain credit mainly from rural credit cooperatives (RCCs), which are
overseen by county or provincial governments.44 Loan balances held by farmers doubled
during 2001–05. Lending for rural infrastructure projects and agricultural industrialization
is provided by the Agricultural Bank of China, the Agricultural Development Bank of China,
the China Development Bank, and the RCCs.45

The Chinese government provides agricultural technology extension services through a

system administered by the National Agro-Technical Extension and Service Center in the
Ministry of Agriculture.46 Technical assistance is provided for plant protection and breeding
and agricultural practices. The Chinese government provides free fertilizer to farmers under
an efficient fertilization program.47

The Chinese government is encouraging the formation of farmer cooperatives, which had
been prohibited in the past.48 The cooperatives will be responsible for providing assistance
to farmers for such activities as market information and extension services.49 According to

40
For a general discussion of China’s agricultural policies, see USDA, ERS, “Briefing Rooms, China:
Policy.”
41
USDA, ERS, China’s New Farm Subsidies, 5–6.
42
Ibid., 8.
43
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China,
September 10–18, 2007.
44
USDA, ERS, New Directions in China’s Agricultural Lending, 5–7.
45
Ibid., 11–12.
46
Ministry of Agriculture, People’s Republic of China, Crop Cultivation in China, 32.
47
Central Peoples’ Government, “100 million farmers to benefit from free land fertilization.” Funding
totaled 200 million yuan ($25.8 million) in 2005, 500 million yuan ($64.9 million) in 2006, and 900 million
yuan ($116.9 million) in 2007. Data are not available on the amount benefitting peach and pear growers.
48
USDA, FAS, China, Peoples Republic of, Agricultural Situation, Presidential Order 57 Supports
Farmer Cooperatives in China, December 6, 2006. The Order was effective as of July 1, 2007.
49
Huang, Jikunt and Rozelle, “China’s Accession to WTO and Shifts in the Agricultural Policy.”
January 2002.

5-11
Chinese industry officials, cooperatives currently are not common in the peach and pear
industries.50

The Chinese canned fruit sector benefits mainly from a value added tax (VAT) rebate of
13 percent on exports.51 The Chinese government recently has been reducing and eliminating
VAT rebates for many agricultural products.52 Although the VAT rebate has not been
changed for exports of canned fruit, Chinese industry members expect that it will be lowered
or eliminated in the future.53

Regulatory Compliance

According to Chinese industry representatives, costs of regulatory compliance have been

increasing in recent years.54 The Chinese government has been increasing the enforcement
of environmental protection measures, particularly waste water treatment, as well as food
safety measures.55 For example, the Chinese central government recently escalated food
safety inspections for exported products.56 Industry representatives expect increased
compliance costs to result in industry consolidation, as many firms cannot afford the
necessary measures to comply with the regulations.

Trade Practices

China maintains an import tariff of 10 percent ad valorem on imports of canned peaches and
canned mixtures and 20 percent ad valorem on imports of canned pears. In addition, a VAT
of 17 percent ad valorem is imposed on imports of these products.57 As previously
mentioned, exporters of canned peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures are provided a VAT
refund of 13 percent ad valorem. In addition, such exporters receive duty drawbacks for
imported inputs, such as sugar.58

50
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China,
September 10–18, 2007.
51
USDA, FAS, China, Peoples Republic of, Canned Deciduous Fruit Annual 2007, April 17, 2007, 5.
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China, September 10–18,
2007.
52
USDA, FAS, China, Peoples Republic of, Trade Policy Monitoring, China Reduces Wide Range of VAT
Rebates 2007.
53
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China,
September 10–18, 2007.
54
Ibid.
55
Ibid.
56
Information Office of the State Council, "China's food quality and safety," August 17, 2007. The new
policy establishes a “one pattern and ten systems” food export supervision approach, with traceability a
major issue.
57
USDA, FAS, China, Peoples Republic of, Trade Policy Monitoring, China’s Import Tariffs on
Processed Foods, Spirits, and Tobacco, 2006, 17.
58
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China,
September 10–18, 2007.

5-12
 Market Factors

Input Costs and Availability/Cost Structure

China’s primary competitive advantage is the availability and cost of the primary inputs for
canned fruit processing, namely raw material and labor. China generally has a large supply
of both inputs, and their costs relative to those of major foreign competitors are low. Prices
paid by processors for fresh peaches and pears in 2007 are presented in table 5.13.

Table 5.13 Fresh peaches and pears: Prices paid by Chinese processors, by location, 2007
Item Location Price (dollars per kg)
Yellow peaches Pinggu 0.27
Yellow peaches Linyi .34-.40
Yellow peaches Ningbo .21-.24
Yellow peaches Huangyan .24
Yellow peaches Anhui .40
Bartlett pears Ningbo .32-.34
Bartlett pears Huangyan .23-.24
Snow pears Linyi .05
Snow pears Ningbo .05
Snow pears Huangyan .07
Source: Commission staff interviews with Chinese industry officials, various locations in China, September 10–18,
2007.

Input prices vary significantly by location and by quality grade. Raw material prices in 2007
were 20 percent to 30 percent higher than in 2006, owing mainly to rising demand by
processors outpacing production.59 Although China is the leading global producer of fresh
peaches and pears, its production of varieties used in canned fruit for export is somewhat
limited. Increasing demand for yellow peaches and Bartlett pears for processing generally
has outpaced new plantings and the availability of these varieties. Some processors are
considering or taking measures to ensure adequate raw material supplies, such as establishing
contracts with growers and procuring their own orchards.60

Labor costs are not available for the peach and pear growing sector in China. Studies indicate
monthly field wages in rural areas of between $60–$75 and daily fruit orchard wages of
about $2 in 2006.61 Wages reported by canned fruit processors ranged between 1,000 yuan
and 2,000 yuan (about $133–$266) per month, before benefits. Benefits, including social
security, added about 1,000 yuan per month to the labor cost. Firms also generally provide
workers with dormitories and canteens. Differences in wages result from location,
competition from other industries, and skill level of employees. Labor costs in Chinese fruit
canneries reportedly have been rising approximately 20 percent annually in recent years.62
Labor availability is also an issue, as canned fruit processing occurs mainly in the eastern
provinces, which are the most economically developed and have many industries competing

59
Ibid.
60
Ibid. However, the use of contracts as well as backward integration by processors is limited.
61
USDA, FAS, China’s Rising Fruit and Vegetable Exports Challenge U.S. Industries, February 2006,
12.
62
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China,
September 10–18, 2007.

5-13
 for labor. Industry members indicate the canned fruit processing sector will increasingly
mechanize in the near future, in large part because of the rising cost and decreasing
availability of labor.63

Data on the cost structure for China’s canned peach and pear producers are presented in table
5.14.64

Table 5.14 Canned fruit: Cost structure of Chinese processors

Product and cost item Share (percent) of total cost
Canned yellow peaches (irregular slices and dices, 15 oz/24):
Peaches 35
Cans 25
Labor 10
Other 30
Total 100
Absolute cost/case $8.00
Canned Bartlett pears (halves, 15oz/24):
Pears 40
Cans 25
Labor 10
Other 25
Total 100
Absolute cost/case $8.00
Canned snow pears (halves, 15oz/24):
Pears 15
Cans 25
Labor 5
Other 55
Total 100
Absolute /case $5.00
Source: Estimated by Commission staff based on interviews with Chinese industry officials, various locations in
China, September 10–18, 2007.

Processing Technology

Chinese canned fruit processors are much less mechanized and thus employ labor to a much
greater degree than do their foreign counterparts. Fresh fruit usually is peeled, pitted, cut, and
packed by hand.65 The Chinese industry anticipates increasing the use of technology and
mechanization in the near future to improve efficiencies and yields, lower costs, and adjust
to changing labor market conditions. Chinese canned fruit processing facilities that are
approved for export are certified as meeting safety and quality standards such as Good
Manufacturing Practices (GMP), Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOP), Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Point (HAACP), and International Standard Oragnization
(ISO) 9001.66

63
Ibid. USDA, FAS, China, Peoples Republic of, Canned Deciduous Fruit Annual 2007, April 17, 2007,
3.
64
Data on costs and cost structure are not available for peach and pear growers or for canned fruit
mixtures.
65
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China,
September 10–18, 2007.
66
Ibid.

5-14
Product Innovation and Market Promotion

Chinese canned fruit processors recognize the importance of product innovation to remain
competitive in the future. Processors are developing new product forms and packaging to
meet their domestic and foreign customer demands.67 Such products include individual sized
plastic cups, glass and plastic jars, gel packs, new flavorings, and different fruit
combinations.

Chinese canned fruit industry officials also indicate that market promotion is necessary to
increase domestic and foreign demand for their products.68 Given China’s large population,
a small per capita increase in consumption would result in a large absolute rise in the
quantity demanded. Some efforts are being made to promote products, mainly through
supermarket demonstrations in the Beijing area.69 However, a major constraint is the lack of
national brands in China. Chinese processors believe such branding is necessary to
substantially increase domestic demand. In addition, some in the industry are concerned that
U.S. and European exporters will capture the Chinese market using internationally
recognized brands.70

Pricing and Marketing Regimes

Prices for fresh fruit for processing are determined through negotiations between growers
and agents for processors.71 Prices are based on market conditions and change frequently,
often on a daily basis. There is a large number of growers and they are not organized into
associations or cooperatives that negotiate a season price as in other producing countries.
Processors generally establish regional buying stations through which fresh fruit is
distributed from the orchard to the processing plants. According to Chinese canned fruit
processors, the current growth in processing and relative shortage of preferred varieties for
processing have given growers more market power and contributed to substantially higher
raw fruit prices in 2007.72

Prices for finished products are negotiated between Chinese processor/exporters and their
foreign buyers.73 Most Chinese canned fruit processors, particularly the larger ones, export
their own products. Prices are affected by global market conditions, and Chinese industry
officials cited the industries in California and Greece as price drivers in the global canned
peach market.74

67
Ibid.
68
Ibid.
69
Chinese industry official, interview by Commission staff, Beijing, China, September 10, 2007.
70
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China,
September 10–18, 2007.
71
Ibid.
72
Ibid.
73
Ibid.
74
Ibid.

5-15
Market Structure and Pricing

Chinese producers participate in discrete market niches, both domestically and globally.75
These niches have distinct demand and pricing structures. The small, but growing, domestic
market consists mainly of peach and pear halves packed in glass jars. Export markets consist
of three main segments. The first is the traditional high quality, hand processed pack of white
peach halves, slices, and dices, packed in metal cans of 8 ounces and 15 ounces, and
exported mainly to Japan. The second is lower quality, packed in metal cans of irregular
peach slices and dices destined for prisons, hospitals, and schools in the U.S. market, a more
recent market for Chinese product. In addition, lower quality snow pear halves, packed in
both retail and institutional metal cans, are marketed to the same institutions as well as to
“dollar stores” in the U.S. market. Third, China is increasing exports of both private label
and branded fruit in individual size plastic cups to the U.S. market. In addition to these
segments, nontraditional markets, such as Russia and the Middle East, are becoming
important export destinations for Chinese canned fruit in various forms. This market
structure is responsible for price differentials among major Chinese export markets.

Table 5.15 presents data on prices of canned peaches, pears, and mixtures in supermarkets
in various Chinese cities.

The product differentiation seen in Chinese exports of canned peaches to Japan (high
quality) versus those to the United States (irregular slices and dices ) is reflected in the
export unit values, as shown in table 5.16. Product differentiation within the U.S. market is
reflected in the unit values of U.S. imports of canned peaches from China, in U.S. dollars by
size of container, as shown in table 5.17. The smaller containers mainly are single serving
plastic cups destined for the retail segment, while the larger containers are metal cans
destined for the institutional segment. The marketing of Chinese canned pears in retail sized
metal containers to low end dollar stores is reflected in the unit values of U.S. imports from
China, by size of container, as shown in table 5.18. During 2002–05, the difference in unit
values between the retail and institutional sized containers was minor. However, in 2006,
the unit value of Chinese exports of canned pears packed in retail size containers rose
substantially, indicating the increasing volume of pears packed in single serving plastic cups
that year.76

75
Ibid.
76
This was confirmed by Commission staff interviews with U.S. and Chinese industry officials, various
locations, September–October 2007.

5-16
Table 5.15 Canned fruit: Prices in selected Chinese supermarkets, September 2007
Location Product Brand Container Price
Yuan/container $/kg

Ole Supermarket, Beijing Yellow peaches, halves Yuenhua Glass jar, 488g 9.80 2.66

Yellow peaches, halves Jiakang Food Glass jar, 700g 8.90 1.69

Yellow peaches, halves Zhenxin Canned Food Glass jar, 880g 11.50 1.73

Yellow peaches, halves Leasun Food Glass jar, 360g 7.60 2.80

White peaches, halves Zhenxin Food Glass Jar, 880g 11.50 1.73

Yellow peaches , halves Springfield (USA) Metal can, 15oz 24.90 7.77

Yellow peaches, halves Dong Won (South Korea) Metal can, 400g 24.00 7.96

Jiuzhou Supermarket, Linyi Yellow peaches, halves Kinsheng Glass jar, 500g 4.70 1.25
Yellow peaches, halves Huanlejia Glass jar, 800g 8.70 1.44
Yellow or white peaches, Guantjang Glass jar, 1,250g 9.00 .95
halves
Taizhou Centurymark Yellow peaches, halves Weipintang Glass jar, 620g 7.60 1.63
Supermarket, Taizhou City Yellow peaches, halves Wuzhouxing Glass jar, 430g 6.00 1.85
Yellow peaches, halves Weipintang Glass jar, 850g 9.90 1.54
Snow pears, halves Aolinqui Glass jar, 450g 5.60 1.65
Yellow peaches, halves Aolinqui Glass jar, 450g 5.60 1.65
Carrefour Market, Gubei, Yellow peach halves Tou Pai (Dalian) Glass jar, 890g 9.40 1.40
Hongqioa, Shanghai Glass jar, 790g 8.60 1.44
Snow pears, halves Tou Pai Glass jar, 890g 9.20 1.37
Yellow peaches, halves Keji Glass jar, 450g 5.70 1.68
Yellow peaches, halves Meifeng Glass jar, 500g 7.20 1.91
Glass jar, 950g 11.20 1.56
Yellow or white peaches, Yida (Hebei) Glass jar, 757g 9.00 1.58
halves
Mixtures Tou Pai Glass jar, 790g 8.90 1.49
Source: Commission staff surveys of Chinese supermarkets, September 10–18, 2007.

Table 5.16 Canned peaches: Unit value of Chinese exports to Japan and the United States, 2002–06
Market 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Dollars per kilogram
Japan 0.90 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.93
United States .53 .54 .629 .65 .69
Price difference (percent) 69 64 46 40 33
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas.

Table 5.17 Canned peaches: Unit value of U.S. imports from China, by container size, 2002–06
Container size 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Dollars per kilogram
Less than 1.4 kg 0.75 0.72 0.93 0.84 0.87
1.4 kg and greater .48 .57 .59 .63 .63
Price difference (percent) 56 26 58 33 38
Source: USITC, Dataweb.

5-17
Table 5.18 Canned pears: Unit value of U.S. imports from China, by container size, 2002–06
Container size 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Dollars per kilogram
Less than 1.4 kg 0.57 0.54 0.48 0.53 0.70
1.4 kg and greater .53 .50 .47 .47 .47
Price difference (percent) 8 8 2 13 49
Source: USITC, Dataweb.

Exchange Rates

The valuation of the remnimbi (RMB) (or Yuan) has benefitted the development of Chinese
production and exports of canned fruits during the period under review.77 An advantageous
rate compared with the U.S. dollar contributed to the competitiveness of China in global
markets for most of the period. In addition, the RMB is pegged to a basket of currencies
which includes the U.S. dollar. However, a recent revaluation, resulting in an appreciation
of about 8 percent vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar, has placed pressure on exporters, particularly in
combination with rising input costs.78 The impact of the appreciation is mitigated by the
beneficial effect on Chinese imports of inputs such as plastic cups, food flavorings, and food
colorings, many of which are either sourced in the United States or priced in dollars.79 Cross
rates also impact exporters. For example, the recent appreciation of the Euro vis-à-vis the
dollar has given China an advantage over European competitors, mainly Greece, in the U.S.
market. Chinese exporters face continued uncertainty regarding the remnimbi (RMB)/dollar
exchange rate as the U.S. government pursues a further revaluation of the RMB.80

77
O’Brien, Patrick, “Developments in the Chinese Fruit and Vegetable Economy,” 44.
78
Chinese industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, various locations in China,
September 10–18, 2007.
79
Ibid.
80
Morrison, Wayne M. and Marc Labonte, China’s Currency: A Summary of the Economic Issues.

5-18
Bibliography
Central People’s Government. “100 million farmers to benefit from free land fertilization.” Gov.cn.
May 6, 2007. http://english.gov.cn/2007-05/06/content_606611.htm.

Congressional Research Service. Wayne M. Morrison and Marc Labonte. China’s Currency: A Summary
of the Economic Issues. CRS Report for Congress RS 21625, updated July 11, 2007.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAOSTAT Database.
http://faostat.fao.org. (accessed various dates).

Global Trade Information Service, Inc. (GTIS). World Trade Atlas Database.

Huang, Jikun and Scot Rozelle. “China’s Accession to WTO and Shifts in the Agricultural Policy.”
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California Davis; California
Agricultural Experiment Station; Giannini Foundation for Agricultural Economics. Working Paper
No. 02-002, January 2002.

Information Office of the State Council. "China's food quality and safety." August 17, 2007.
http://english.gov.cn/2007-08/17/content_720346.htm.

Ministry of Agriculture, P.R. China. The Department of Crop Production. Crop Cultivation in China. No
date.

O’Brien, Patrick M. “Developments in the Chinese Fruit and Vegetable Economy: Implications for
Trade, Overview Report.” January 2006. Economic Consulting Group.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Economic Research Service (ERS). Fred Gale and Robert
Collender. New Directions in China’s Agricultural Lending. Publication WRS-06-01, January
2006.

——. Sophia Huang and Fred Gale. China’s Rising Fruit and Vegetable Exports Challenge U.S.
Industries. Publication FTS-320-01-01, February 2006.

——. Fred Gale, Bryan Lohmar, and Francis Tuan. China’s New Farm Subsidies. Publication WRS-05-
01, February 2005.

——. Brian Lohmar, Agapi Somwaru, and Keith Wiebe. “The Ongoing Reform of Land Tenure Policies in
China.” Agricultural Outlook, September 2002.

——. “Briefing Rooms, China: Policy.” http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/China/policy.htm.

——. “Briefing Rooms, China Agricultural and Economic Data: Provincial Data.”
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/china/provincialform.aspx.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). (Authors: Mark Petry,
Owen Wagner, and Bao Liting). China, Peoples Republic of, Trade Polichy Monitoring, China
Reduces Wide Range of VAT Rebates 2007. GAIN Report No. CH7060, July 26, 2007.

5-19
——. (Authors: Jorge Sanchez, Wu Bugang, and Frances Wei). China, Peoples Republic of, Canned
Deciduous Fruit Annual 2007. GAIN Report No. CH5023, April 17, 2007.

——. (Author: Jorge Sanchez). China, Peoples Republic of, Agricultural Situation, Presidential Order 57
Supports Farmer Cooperatives in China. GAIN Report No. CH6113, December 6, 2006.

——. (Authors: Caleb O’Kray, Zhang Jiangping, Jiang Junyang, Wu Bugang, and Zhang Lei). China,
Peoples Republic of, Trade Policy Monitoring, China’s Import Tariffs on Processed Foods,
Spirits, and Tobacco, 2006. GAIN Report CH6038, July 19, 2006.

——. (Authors: Kevin Latner, Wu Bugang, and Caleb O’Kray). China, Peoples Republic of, Canned
Deciduous Fruit Annual 2006. GAIN Report No. CH6028, June 16, 2006.

——. (Authors: Wu Bugang and Ralph Gifford). China, Peoples Republic of, Canned Deciduous Fruit
Annual 2005. GAIN Report No. CH5023, March 16, 2005

——. (Authors: John D. Rutledge and Feng Lu). China, Peoples Republic of, Canned Deciduous Fruit
Annual 1998. GAIN Report No. CH8636, September 15, 1998.

5-20
CHAPTER 6
The Industry in the European Union
European Union (EU) member countries accounted for about 32 percent of world canned
peach production during 2002–06 (table 2.1). Greece and Spain, the two largest canned
peach producers in the EU, together accounted for more than 90 percent of total EU
production throughout 2002–06. Italy and France accounted for the remainder. The EU is
a net exporter of canned peaches, with its member countries exporting roughly 40 percent
of annual production.1 Greece was the largest exporter of peaches worldwide in 2006, while
Spain was the third largest. The bulk of Greek exports are destined for intra-EU markets, but
Greece is also a major competitor in the global market. EU support to domestic growers
provides a competitive advantage, which results in an abundant supply of peaches and
effectively reduces the cost of fresh fruit for canners. EU producers also benefit from their
proximity to two large consuming markets, the European Union and the United States,
particularly the East coast. As Greece and Spain are the principal EU suppliers to the U.S.
market, this chapter will focus on the canned peach industries in those two countries.

While individual EU member countries are major exporters of canned pears and canned fruit
mixtures, the EU is a net importer of both canned pears and fruit mixtures, as most member
country production is destined for the internal EU market. While Italy is the world’s largest
producer and exporter of canned pears and is a major exporter of canned fruit mixtures; both
products primarily serve the EU market. Italy does not export a significant amount of pears
to the United States. Spain exports significant volumes of both products, a substantial
amount of which are shipped to the United States.

Production Trends
Canned Production
EU annual production of canned peaches and canned pears averaged roughly 400,000 mt and
97,000 mt, respectively, during the 2002–06 period (table 6.1). EU production of both
products generally fluctuates depending on the success of the Greek peach crop and Spanish
pear crop. Since its expansion in late 1970s and early 1980s, the Greek peach canning
industry has been one of the world’s largest producers.2 With the exception of 2003, when
canned peach production fell to 62,000 mt as a result of poor weather conditions, Greek
canned peach production remained relatively stable during 2002–06, ranging between
276,000 mt and 306,000 mt (table 6.2). Since 2002, EU canned peach production trended
upward through 2005 but fell in 2006 to a level believed to be more in line with global
market demand.3

1
Agrosynergie, Evaluation of Measures, October 2006, 2.
2
USDA, ERS, Competition in the Canned Peach Industry, January 1999, 1–2.
3
Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Imathia, Greece, August 10, 2007 and FAO,
FAOSTAT Production Database.

6-1
Table 6.1 Peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures: EU production volume, 2002–06
Items 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Metric tons
Peaches:
Canned production 443,379 281,687 453,769 571,491 437,285
Fresh production 2,979,520 2,448,580 2,831,080 3,187,930 3,280,200
Fresh production used for processing 408,657 241,162 406,884 473,221 407,147
Pears:
Canned production 91,724 86,082 85,454 89,079 83,431
Fresh production 1,908,560 1,828,500 1,759,100 1,817,000 1,787,100
Fresh production used for processing 143,940 146,813 144,340 147,786 139,500
Sources: USDA, FAS, various GAIN Reports and PS&D database; FAOSTAT; Eurostat; Greek
Canners Association; FNACV, 8th World Canned Deciduous Fruit Conference, 2007.

Note: Processing includes canning, purée, and freezing.

Table 6.2 Peaches: Greek production volume, 2002–06

Peaches 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Metric tons
Canned production 276,000 62,000 285,000 306,000 280,000
Fresh production 596,000 108,000 800,000 840,000 780,000
Fresh production used for processing 238,000 50,000 260,000 280,000 275,000
Sources: USDA, FAS, various GAIN Reports.

Note: Processing includes canning, purée, and freezing.

The Spanish canned peach industry, although only about one half the size of the Greek
industry, is an important supplier in many global markets. During 2002–06, average annual
canned peach production in Spain was about 157,000 mt (table 6.3). Production was down
significantly in 2006, however, because of reduced quantities of fresh fruit delivered for
canning. Spanish production of canned pears followed a pattern similar to canned peaches
during 2002–06, averaging about 22,500 mt annually (table 6.4).

Table 6.3 Peaches: Spanish production volume, 2002–06

Peaches 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Metric tons
Canned production 143,979 190,037 139,369 183,491 129,285
Fresh production 1,247,400 1,270,800 916,500 1,198,300 1,380,100
Fresh production used for processing 136,657 158,162 113,884 160,221 99,147
Sources: USDA, FAS, various GAIN Reports.

Note: Processing includes canning, purée, and freezing.

6-2
Table 6.4 Pears: Spanish production volume, 2002–06
Pears 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Metric tons
Canned production 22,624 26,950 20,754 23,579 18,431
Fresh production 640,800 728,300 562,100 652,000 604,100
Fresh production used for processing 37,707 44,916 34,590 39,299 30,719
Source: FNACV, 8th World Canned Deciduous Fruit Conference, 2007.

Note: Processing includes canning, purée, and freezing.

Growing
Production output for canned peaches is determined in large part by the availability of fresh
peaches suitable for canning. Cling peaches are the predominant variety grown for
processing in both Spain and Greece. Unlike in the United States and most other countries
where cling peaches are used almost exclusively for processing, consumers in Spain prefer
cling peaches for fresh consumption, creating dual markets for Spanish growers.4 Quality,
however, also affects the market in which the peaches are sold. In Greece, although freestone
peaches are the preferred variety for fresh consumption, higher quality cling peaches are
often sold in the fresh market.5

In the EU, canners face significant competition from the fresh peach market for the supply
of raw material for processing. Almost 80 percent of peach production in Spain has
traditionally been sold in the fresh market.6 Spanish peach production has recently reached
historically high production levels, with average fresh production reaching almost
1.3 million mt during 2005–06. However, a very successful peach crop in terms of both size
and quality led Spanish peach producers to sell a greater share of their 2006 production in
the fresh market and significantly reduced quantities delivered to processors.7 High quality
fruit generally receives a premium price in the fresh market compared to the processing
market.8 Competition for fresh peaches in the EU also occurs as a result of demand for fresh
fruit for freezing and for purée.

The EU fresh peach crop has averaged approximately 3 million mt annually in recent years.
Spain has been the largest producer of fresh peaches, followed by Italy and Greece. A
number of factors influence the success of the peach crop, such as the timing of harvest,
weather, field practices, and water availability. Although yields in the EU are typically in the
15–20 mt per hectare range, average annual yields, and as a result, total production, can have
wide swings. Yields in Greece are typically slightly higher than those in Spain.9

4
Navarro, “The Peach Industry in Spain: State of the Art, Research, Development,” September 10, 2003,
1.
5
Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Imathia, Greece, August 9, 2007.
6
Navarro, “The Peach Industry in Spain: State of the Art, Research, Development,” September 10, 2003,
3.
7
Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Murcia, Spain, August 6, 2007.
8
USDA, FAS, Spain Canned Deciduous Annual 2007, 5.
9
In 2006, the Greek yield was 20 mt per hectare compared to a six year average of approximately 19 mt
per hectare between 2001 and 2006. Comparatively, the average yield in Spain was 15 mt per hectare
between 2001 and 2005. Yields acquired from Eurostat General and Regional Statistics Database and
correspondence with official from the Greek Peach Canners Association.

6-3
 EU production decreased significantly in 2003, as harsh weather caused a 30 percent drop
in peach production in Greece and reduced yields to 4 mt per hectare. According to the
Greek Canned Peach Association (EKE), 2006 cling peach production was approximately
450,000 mt, down 10 percent from 2005 production. Processors reported that yields were
down as a result of farmers picking fruit earlier than it was ready for processing.10 The 2007
harvested production of cling peaches was expected to be similar in size to the 2006 crop
with a total output of 480,000 mt. Of the 480,000 mt of cling peaches produced, 280,000 mt
of raw product was used for canning, while approximately 150,000 mt, 30,000 mt, and
20,000 mt were destined for the purée, frozen, and fresh consumption markets,
respectively.11

Harsh weather has been less of a factor in the major growing areas of Spain. Spain’s total
fresh peach production reached a five year high in 2006 and is expected to be very large in
2007 as well.

Spanish fresh pear production averaged 637,000 mt annually between 2002 and 2006
(table 6.4). Approximately 7 percent of total Spanish pear production goes to processing and
an average of roughly 70 percent is consumed in the domestic fresh market, with the
remainder exported as fresh fruit.12 In 2007, the volume of production of Williams variety
pears, the principal type used for canning, is estimated to be 26 percent below the 2006
volume as a result of adverse weather conditions during the growing period.13

Structure and Organization of Industry

Processing
Canned fruit processing plants in both Greece and Spain are generally located near major
growing regions. In Greece, the peach processors are generally located in the growing
regions of Central Macedonia, primarily in the counties of Pella and Imathia. In Spain, most
of the peach processing occurs in southern Spain around the growing regions of Murcia,
Alicante, and Albacete, while most of the pear processing occurs closer to the primary pear
growing region further north near Lerida.

Both the Spanish and Greek processing sectors have consolidated over the past 25 years,
although their concentration has not changed significantly during the period of review.
Currently there are 17 canners in Greece and 15 canners in Spain.14 Domestic and foreign
competition has forced the EU industries to manage their operations more efficiently and to
modernize their processing facilities. Smaller, less competitive firms that did not modernize
were forced out of the industry by accumulated debt and lack of capital.15

A number of competitive advantages favor larger processing plants that have remained in
business. First, they had greater access to capital, which allowed them to invest in

10
USDA, FAS, Greece Canned Deciduous Fruit Annual 2006, 1.
11
Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Imathia, Greece, August 9, 2007.
12
FAO, FAOSTAT Production Database and GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.
13
FreshInfo News, “Spanish Pears Strong,” September 8, 2007.
14
Industry officials, interviews with Commission staff, Murcia, Spain and Imathia, Greece, August 7 and
10, 2007.
15
Industry officials, e-mail messages to Commission staff, September 7 and 11, 2007.

6-4
modernization programs and better management in order to become more efficient. Second,
their financial stability, scale of production, product quality, and the use of comprehensive
marketing programs and market research provided them with the ability to maintain and
further develop their sales in foreign markets.16

As a result of consolidation, industries have become less fragmented and a cooperative

method of integration has taken place.17 Both the Spanish and Greek canned fruit industries
have developed better management and oversight of both the industry’s operations and
strategy as a whole. In Greece specifically, the industry has become more vertically
integrated in its management of contracts as a result of consolidation. According to canning
industry officials, because there are fewer contractual relationships between the growers and
canners, there is more direct communication between both groups, resulting in better fruit
quality, and more balanced utilization of installed capacity throughout the industry. This
improved management of contracts with farmers has reduced industry costs in management
and production.18

Despite industry consolidation, processing capacity during 2002–06 has remained relatively
stable in Spain and Greece, as plant operating efficiency has risen.19 Although maximum
annual production capacity in Greece is estimated to be about 480,000 mt,20 industry officials
believe capacity utilization to be between 336,000–360,000 mt, depending on worldwide
canned fruit supplies, global demand, and the availability of fresh fruit. Industry
representatives do not view a reduction of capacity as realistic or probable since dismantling
existing production lines would be expensive, would not necessarily increase efficiency or
decrease costs, and would eliminate the processors’ ability to respond to possible increases
in demand in the future.21

Greek and Spanish canned peach producers, unlike U.S. producers, have begun to expand
and diversify their product lines to include peach purée in order to meet increasing global
demand. In Greece, for example, five purée lines have been added since the start of the 2006
season. Only two canners in Greece do not have a purée line, but it is expected that they will
in the near future.22

Growing
Peaches for both fresh consumption and processing are produced in Northern Greece in six
territories located in Central Macedonia & Thessaly.23 The areas of Pella and Pieria in central
Macedonia are especially known for their high quality fruit.24 The total land area utilized for
peach growing was 23,900 hectares in 2006 and has remained steady since 2002. In Spain,
the main production areas for peaches intended for canning, together with their share of total

16
Ibid., September 9 and 11, 2007
17
Industry officials, interviews with Commission staff, Murcia, Spain and Imathia, Greece, August 7 and
10, 2007.
18
Ibid., September 7 and 11, 2007.
19
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Murcia, Spain, and Imathia, Greece, August 10,
2007.
20
Industry official, e-mails message to Commission staff, July 25, 2007.
21
Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Imathia, Greece, August 10, 2007.
22
Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Veria, Greece, August 10, 2007.
23
USDA, FAS, Greece Canned Deciduous Fruit Annual 2006, 5.
24
Davias, “Eat a Peach,” Summer 2006, 14.

6-5
production, are the Aragon region25 (37 percent), Murcia (36 percent), and Catalonia (20
percent).26 The primary growing regions for pears intended for canning are Lerida, Huesca,
and Zaragoza. These regions are all located in the northeast corner of Spain.27

There are 52 peach producer organizations (POs)28 in Greece, the largest of which reports
a membership of approximately 500-700 farmers.29 Cooperatives, which function as POs but
also cover different crops, are often larger. A.L.M.M.E,30 an association of three different
agricultural cooperatives, represents approximately 1,200 peach farmers and 2,200 farmers
in total. A key function of POs is the role they play in channeling EU support funds to the
producers. However, the Greek Ministry of Agriculture is considering a plan to reduce the
number of peach farmer groups by almost 50 percent in order to increase efficiency.31 POs
have high administrative costs, and, as a result, some industry officials report that EU aid
is primarily used to finance the POs’ operations.32 According to some industry officials, this
system is not efficient,33 and the percentage of produce that fruit and vegetable POs handle
has dropped from 40 percent six years ago to less than 34 percent in 2006. Changes made
as a result of the 2008 European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Reform to the Single
Farm Payment will also include measures to make the POs more relevant by eliminating
subsidies for PO operations that could more efficiently be left to the market.34

As with the canning sector, consolidation has been taking place among growers, with a trend
towards larger scale farms that capture economies of scale and increase access to EU support
funds. The typical size of farms in Murcia is currently relatively small, ranging from 10 to
12 hectares, but the average size is expected to continue to increase. There are some medium
and large scale farms in Murcia that are around 100 and 400 hectares in size, respectively.35
Greek farms (4 or 5 hectares average) are typically much smaller than the average farm in
the EU or the United States.36 The average age of Greek farmers is increasing and as aging
farmers begin to retire and leave the market, farms are beginning to be consolidated.37

The EU is a large consumer of canned peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures (tables 6.5–6.7). EU
consumption of canned peaches and canned pears has trended irregularly upward throughout
2002–06. The EU is a net importer of canned pears and mixtures (tables 6.6 and 6.7). Taking
into consideration beginning and ending stocks, consumption as a percentage of production
is far greater in Spain than in Greece for canned peaches and pears.38 However, Spanish per
capita consumption of canned peaches has fallen in recent years as advances in transport and
packaging have made high quality fresh peaches available to Spanish consumers most of the
year and Spain’s growing population of immigrants is not a traditional canned peach
consumer.39

25
Aragon includes the Navarra and Rioja autonomous regions.
26
FNACV, “Spain Country Report,” 2007, 5.
27
Ibid., 7.
28
A producer organization is a state recognized self initiated group of producers.
29
USDA, FAS, Greece Canned Deciduous Fruit Annual 2006, 5.
30
Association of Agricultural Cooperatives.
31
Ibid.
32
Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Imathia, Greece, August 10, 2007.
33
Ibid.
34
AgraEurope, “SFP Extension Will Aid Fruit and Vegetable Sector Liberalisation,” August 31, 2007.
35
Industry official, interview with Commission staff, Murcia, Spain, August 6, 2007.
36
USDA, ERS, “European Union: Basic Information.”
37
Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Imathia, Greece, August 10, 2007.
38
USDA, FAS, Canned Peach Situation in Selected Countries, January 2006.
39
Dunn, “Shortfall in Spanish canning predicted to last into 2008,” September 14, 2007.

6-6
Table 6.5 Canned peaches: EU domestic production, trade, and consumption, 2002–06
Ratio of Ratio of
imports to exports to
Year Production Imports Exports Consumption consumption production
Metric tons Percent
2002 447,379 26,180 140,013 333,546 8 31
2003 281,687 71,956 59,409 294,234 24 21
2004 453,769 51,016 71,110 433,675 12 16
2005 517,491 24,714 101,806 440,399 6 20
2006 437,285 22,097 114,195 345,187 6 26
Sources: USDA, FAS, various GAIN Reports; GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

Table 6.6 Canned pears: EU domestic production, trade, and consumption, 2002–06
Ratio of imports Ratio of
to consumption exports to
Year Production Imports Exports Consumption production
Metric tons Percent
2002 91,724 28,981 4,381 116,324 25 5
2003 86,082 32,584 3,211 115,455 28 4
2004 85,454 35,201 2,586 118,069 30 3
2005 89,079 33,688 3,732 119,035 28 4
2006 83,431 27,926 5,548 105,809 26 7
Sources: USDA, FAS, various GAIN Reports; GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

Table 6.7 Canned fruit mixtures: EU domestic production, trade, and consumption, 2002–06
Ratio of imports Ratio of
to consumption exports to
Year Production Imports Exports Consumption production
Metric tons Percent
2002 130,900 27,766 17,204 141,462 20 13
2003 125,175 33,275 14,186 144,264 23 11
2004 137,560 40,053 13,536 164,077 24 10
2005 139,222 42,122 19,367 161,977 26 14
2006 134,587 42,627 24,083 153,131 28 18
Sources: USDA, FAS, various GAIN Reports; GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

Trade
Exports
EU exports of canned peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures in 2006 amounted to $103.6 million,
$7.5 million, and $41.3 million, respectively (table 6.8–6.10). The primary markets outside
the EU for the major EU producers of canned peaches are Russia, Thailand, and the United
States (table 6.8). Russia was the largest growth market for EU exports of canned peaches
and fruit mixtures during 2002–06.

6-7
Table 6.8 Canned peaches: EU exports, by principal markets, 2002–06
Market 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
Russia 16,877 11,931 12,202 16,402 27,563
United States 21,345 8,597 7,161 9,441 13,438
Thailand 8,482 1,921 5,230 18,123 13,683
Canada 18,724 5,595 4,405 8,699 8,564
Mexico 29,763 5,312 1,866 1,448 6,109
Other 44,822 26,053 40,246 47,694 44,838
Total 140,013 59,409 71,110 101,807 114,195
Value (1,000 US dollars)
Russia 12,012 11,588 11,874 13,605 27,551
United States 14,039 7,865 7,720 10,027 13,473
Thailand 5,911 1,437 4,279 13,552 11,085
Canada 12,598 5,055 3,808 6,813 7,084
Mexico 17,427 4,287 1,543 1,193 5,433
Other 31,826 22,081 35,193 39,384 38,958
Total 93,812 52,313 64,417 84,574 103,573
Unit value (dollars/metric ton)
Russia 712 971 973 829 1,000
United States 658 915 1,078 1,062 1,003
Thailand 697 748 818 748 810
Canada 673 903 864 783 827
Mexico 586 807 827 824 889
Other 710 848 874 826 869
Average 670 881 906 831 907
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

Table 6.9 Canned pears: EU exports, by principal markets, 2002–06

Market 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
Libya 39 20 1 44 1,569
United States 874 350 358 388 775
Switzerland 402 497 301 415 488
Russia 477 173 154 211 445
Croatia 128 188 186 329 254
Other 2,461 1,983 1,586 2,345 2,026
Total 4,381 3,211 2,586 3,732 5,557
Value (1,000 US dollars)
Libya 30 28 1 35 1,734
United States 842 549 780 818 1,460
Switzerland 367 523 374 549 609
Russia 514 249 213 284 596
Croatia 85 169 238 289 253
Other 2,348 2,619 2,498 3,141 2,825
Total 4,186 4,137 4,104 5,115 7,476
Unit value (dollars/metric ton)
Libya 769 1,400 1,000 795 1,105
United States 963 1,569 2,179 2,108 1,884
Switzerland 913 1,052 1,243 1,323 1,248
Russia 1,078 1,439 1,383 1,346 1,339
Croatia 664 899 1,280 878 996
Other 954 1,321 1,575 1,339 1,394
Average 955 1,288 1,587 1,371 1,345
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

6-8
Table 6.10 Canned fruit mixtures: EU exports, by principal markets, 2002–06
Market 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
Russia 539 590 940 5,806 7,452
Japan 1,931 1,894 1,526 1,748 2242
Canada 3,215 1,995 821 1,271 2108
Switzerland 1,046 1,387 953 1,452 1290
Norway 614 889 694 656 1183
Other 9,859 7,431 8,602 8,434 9808
Total 17,204 14,186 13,536 19,367 24,083
Value (1,000 US dollars)
Russia 660 758 1,712 10,018 13,213
Japan 2,069 2,401 1,922 2,078 2,830
Canada 3,367 3,145 810 1,391 2,737
Switzerland 1,483 2,182 2,025 2,882 2,682
Norway 1,015 1,766 1,296 1,215 2,306
Other 11,870 11,467 15,089 13,951 17,571
Total 20,464 21,718 22,855 31,535 41,338
Unit value (dollars/metric ton)
Russia 1,224 1,285 1,821 1,725 1,773
Japan 1,071 1,268 1,260 1,189 1,262
Canada 1,047 1,576 987 1,094 1,298
Switzerland 1,418 1,573 2,125 1,985 2,079
Norway 1,653 1,987 1,867 1,852 1,949
Other 1,204 1,543 1,754 1,654 1,791
Average 1,189 1,531 1,688 1,628 1,716
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

Note: Data are for HTS subheading 2008.92, canned fruit mixtures of all types, including those of peaches and pears.

Greece is the largest EU exporter of canned peaches. In 2006, Greek exports were valued
$239.5 million, or 35 percent of the world total. In 2006, the United States was Greece’s
third largest export market outside of the EU. Greece is the largest source of imports in the
United States and made up almost 24 percent of all canned peach imports into the United
States market in 2006 based on value.40 Approximately 69 percent of canned peach exports
from Greece, based on value, are destined for other EU markets, the largest being Germany
and the United Kingdom.

Spain, the world’s 4th largest exporter in 2006, exported $78 million of canned peaches, but
70 percent of those exports were to intra-EU markets. Spain was the 5th largest source of
canned peach imports for the United States, accounting for approximately 10 percent of total
U.S. imports.41

EU canned pear exports to non-EU markets in 2006 were less than 10 percent of its canned
peach exports that year (table 6.9). Spain was the 4th largest global exporter of canned pears,
with approximately 85 percent destined for other EU markets, mainly Germany and Portugal.
The largest market outside of the EU for Spanish canned pears is the United States, which
received approximately 7 percent of Spanish canned pear exports. Spain is the 4th largest
source of canned pear imports to the United States. Italy was the world’s largest producer
and exporter of canned pears in 2006, supplying approximately 22 percent of world exports.

40
GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.
41
Ibid.

6-9
 However, approximately 92 percent of Italian exports were destined for EU markets in 2006,
and only very small quantities were shipped to the U.S. market.

Imports
The EU is a significant global importer of canned peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures. The
largest source of imports is South Africa for all three products (tables 6.11, 6.12, and 6.13).
EU member states that import the largest quantities of canned fruit from outside the EU are
Germany, the United Kingdom, and France.

Table 6.11 Canned peaches: EU imports, by principal sources, 2002–06

Source 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
South Africa 21,788 25,503 21,521 16,763 14,622
China 354 17,247 11,474 2,608 1,809
Chile 57 1,430 895 2,263 2,070
Thailand 200 249 574 477 841
Australia 1,853 2,158 1,198 611 1,125
Other 1,928 25,369 15,354 1,993 1,479
Total 26,180 71,956 51,016 24,715 21,946
Value (1,000 US dollars)
South Africa 14,442 22,230 24,806 18,675 15,437
China 156 13,607 8,731 1,985 1,915
Chile 50 1,358 1,079 2,262 1,710
Thailand 247 349 959 889 1,445
Australia 1,668 2,227 1,548 687 1,315
Other 1,638 21,692 14,031 2,286 1,461
Total 18,201 61,463 51,154 26,784 23,283
Unit value (dollars per metric ton)
South Africa 663 872 1,153 1,114 1,056
China 441 789 761 761 1,059
Chile 877 950 1,206 1,000 826
Thailand 1,235 1,402 1,671 1,864 1,718
Australia 900 1,032 1,292 1,124 1,169
Other 850 855 914 1,147 988
Average 695 854 1,003 1,084 1,061
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

6-10
Table 6.12 Canned pears: EU imports, by principal sources, 2002–06
Source 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
South Africa 10,635 12,468 11,937 11,071 12,348
Australia 11,935 10,369 9,402 8,273 5,452
China 3,468 5,511 10,885 12,186 6,341
Argentina 2,552 3,285 2,376 1,878 3,042
Chile 111 265 442 152 503
Other 280 687 159 128 142
Total 28,981 32,585 35,201 33,688 27,828
Value (1,000 US dollars)
South Africa 8,443 11,748 13,249 12,984 14,033
Australia 8,138 8,613 8,938 7,777 5,901
China 2,202 3,638 7,208 7,998 4,700
Argentina 1,948 2,000 1,742 1,281 2,028
Chile 70 198 311 112 345
Other 439 751 251 192 356
Total 21,240 26,948 31,698 30,344 27,362
Unit value (dollars/metric ton)
South Africa 794 942 1,110 1,173 1,136
Australia 682 831 951 940 1,082
China 635 660 662 656 741
Argentina 763 609 733 682 667
Chile 631 747 704 737 686
Other 1,568 1,093 1,579 1,500 2,507
Average 733 827 900 901 983
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

Table 6.13 Canned fruit mixtures: EU imports, by principal sources, 2002–06

Source 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
South Africa 11,810 15,211 12,763 11,735 10,686
Thailand 9,641 11,868 15,729 16,420 17,931
Philippines 1,546 1,076 2,493 1,836 3,080
China 131 749 2,028 5,202 2,859
Indonesia 1,159 752 2,081 1,900 1,991
Other 3,479 3,619 4,959 5,029 5,757
Total 27,766 33,275 40,053 42,122 42,304
Value (1,000 US dollars)
South Africa 11,828 18,394 17,724 16,815 15,439
Thailand 7,620 9,652 12,861 13,825 15,204
Philippines 1,337 969 1,942 1,796 3,836
China 154 756 1,680 4,251 2,887
Indonesia 756 525 1,505 1,321 1,387
Other 4,916 5,465 7,844 9,333 12,034
Total 26,611 35,760 43,555 47,341 50,787
Unit value (dollars/metric ton)
South Africa 1,002 1,209 1,389 1,433 1,445
Thailand 790 813 818 842 848
Philippines 865 901 779 978 1,245
China 1,176 1,009 828 817 1,010
Indonesia 652 698 723 695 697
Other 1,413 1,510 1,582 1,856 2,090
Average 958 1,075 1,087 1,124 1,201
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

Note: Data are for HTS subheading 2008.92, canned fruit mixtures of all types, including those of peaches and pears.

6-11
Competitive Factors
Government Programs and Trade Practices

Government Programs

Government programs, under the CAP, have contributed to a stable supply of fresh fruit for
processing and have decreased the cost of raw materials for EU canning industries. Under
the current system established as a result of the CAP Reform of 2000, minimum price
supports for canned peaches and pears were eliminated and replaced by a system that
provides aid to growers who deliver fresh fruit to processors. EU support programs also
provide operational funding to producer organizations to promote the use of efficient and
environmentally sound production techniques, reduce production costs and stabilize prices,
improve quality, and promote consumption through marketing.42

In order to receive EU aid, peach and pear growers generally organize themselves by joining
producer organizations. EU support to European peach and pear industries is channeled
through these POs to its members once deliveries of fruit intended for processing have been
confirmed. Approximately one half of the POs operational programs are funded by the EU,43
while the remainder is funded through proportionate payments from PO members based on
volume or value of their marketed products, or by other rates set by the POs.44

Prices for fresh fruit delivered to processors are negotiated between the POs, their member
growers and the canners prior to the start of the annual harvest. If processors and growers
cannot agree on a price through negotiations, the national governments may intervene. Once
a price (per kilogram) has been established, individual growers then sell fresh fruit to specific
processors under contract, which specifies quantities and the predetermined price.45

In order for the PO and its growers to receive funding, they must complete their contracts
with processors and have the local national authority certify that the contracted product has
been delivered for processing.46 Since 2001, aid for fresh fruit intended for processing that
a grower receives has been set at €47.70 ($57.45)47 and €161.70 ($194.82) per mt for fresh
peaches and pears, respectively. Once fresh fruit has been delivered to a canner, growers
receive the negotiated price for the fresh fruit from the canner, as well as the EU support for
each kilogram delivered through their respective PO. For example, in 2006 in Greece, once
the fresh peaches were delivered to the processor, the processor paid the producer the
previously negotiated price of €0.23 ($0.28) per kilogram (kg). Once the delivery to the

42
AgraEurope, “CAP Monitor, Section 13-A (Fresh Fruit and Vegetables),” August 10, 2000, 13A-2.
43
EU funding covers one half of the PO’s operational program up to a maximum of 4.1 percent of the
PO’s marketed production. Operational programs must follow certain guidelines intended to promote
environmentally friendly production practices and maintain financial provisions for plant health standards
and rules.
44
Operational funding for Producer Organizations paid by the EU totaled €558,011,522.49 in 2005.
European Union, “Final adoption of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2007,”
March 16, 2007.
45
Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Murcia, Spain, August 6, 2007.
46
Agrosynergie, Evaluation of Measures, October 2006, 2.
47
Euros converted to dollars based on an average exchange rate of 0.83 Euros per dollar (table 3.2).

6-12
 processor was verified by the PO and a national authority, the grower received the additional
€0.0477 ($0.0575) per kg in EU aid. Therefore, the total price received by the producer in
2006 was €0.2777 ($0.3346) per kg (table 6.14). In Greece, once the delivery has been
verified and the aid has been allocated to various producers by the PO, the aid is then
distributed to the POs’ members through a national, state mandated bank, the Agricultural
Bank of Greece.48

Table 6.14 Fresh fruit for canning: Grower prices received, 2003–07
Item and country 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Euros per kilogram
Peaches:
Greece:
Price paid by canners 0.60 0.22 0.19 0.23 0.23
Aid to grower .05 .05 .05 .05 .05
Total .65 .27 .24 .28 .28
Spain:
Price paid by canners (a) (a) (a) .16 .27
Aid to grower (a) (a) (a) .05 .05
Total (a) (a) (a) .21 .32
Pears:
Spain:
Price paid by canners (a)(a) (a) .17 .24
Aid to grower (a) a
() (a) .16 .16
Total (a) (a) (a) .33 .40
Source: FreshInfo News, “Spanish Pears Strong”; USDA, FAS, various Gain Reports; FNACV, 8th World Canned
Deciduous Fruit Conference, 2007.
a
Not available.

As a result of support being tied to the quantity of fruit intended for processing, growers have
been motivated to sell their product to canners. This, in effect, provides a stable supply of
produce for canners. The financial support has also decreased the price canners pay for fresh
fruit. Between 2002–06, the aid represented an average of between 17–19 percent of the total
price that Greek and Spanish peach growers received, respectively, for the fresh product
destined for canning.49 The aid accounts for an even larger percentage of the total price
received by pear growers, but the impact has also varied more depending on the member
country. For the 2001–06 period, the aid for pears provided, on average, 47 and 29 percent
of the total price received by growers in Spain and Italy, respectively. The financial benefit
that the aid has provided is often shared, as the growers receive a higher total price and the
canners pay a slightly lower price to the grower. In effect, the aid has reduced the cost of raw
materials for processors slightly and has provided a stable supply of fresh produce because
the growers receive the support only if their product is sold to the processors.50

48
Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Veria, Greece, August 9, 2007.
49
Agrosynergie, Evaluation of Measures, October 2006, 4. According to estimates by the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development, EU-15 subsidies and other transfers from governments of
member nations accounted for 37 percent of farm revenue in 2003, compared to 17 percent in the United
States.
50
Agrosynergie, Evaluation of Measures, October 2006, 4.

6-13
 After the CAP reform of 2000, a national production threshold system replaced the former
community threshold.51 The thresholds, shown in table 6.15, are expressed in raw materials
delivered to processors and not the final finished product output. Whenever a national
threshold is exceeded, the fixed aid assigned for the respective product, €0.0477 ($0.0575)
per kg for peaches and €0.1617 ($0.1948) for pears in 2006 and 2007, is reduced in the
following year.52 If a country exceeds its assigned threshold in a given year, the penalties are
applied the following year only to the sector in the country which exceeded its threshold.
While these thresholds are meant to prevent an oversupply in the market, the quantities of
peaches delivered to processors have been far below the annual national threshold quantities.
In the case of pears, however, Italy’s threshold was exceeded in 2006, resulting in a reduction
in aid for pears from €161.7 ($194.82) to €154.00 ($185.54) per mt.

Table 6.15 EU thresholds for canned peaches and pears, by member state, 2007
Member state Peaches Pears
Metric tons of raw materials
Greece 300,000 5,155
Spain 180,794 35,199
France 15,685 17,703
Italy 42,309 45,708
Netherlands N/A 243
Austria N/A 9
Portugal 218 600
EU total 539,006 104,617
Source: USDA, FAS, European Union Agricultural Situation, EU Fruit and Vegetable Regime, May 2, 2001, 10.

The EU announced that it will reform its funding under the CAP Common Market
Organization (CMO) for fruit and vegetable production in 2008, in order to increase
competitiveness and make the sector more market oriented, stabilize income fluctuations due
to crises, promote consumption, enhance environmental protection, and ensure WTO
compliance.53 Under the reformed fruit and vegetable CMO, aid to fruits and vegetables for
processing, including peaches and pears, will be decoupled from production and transferred
into the Single Farm Payment (SFP) scheme,54 increasing the previous national budgetary
ceilings under SFP by about €800 ($964) million.55 This reform and other reforms under the
Fruit and Vegetable CMO, effective in January 2008, will bring the fruit and vegetable sector
into alignment with other previously reformed sectors.56

Under the 2008 changes and the SFP scheme, specific land area dedicated to harvesting fruit
and vegetables will become eligible for SFP entitlements. The inclusion of fruits and
vegetables in the SFP program will require the POs in the sector, under the “cross

51
Previously, a single threshold was applied to the total production level of the entire EU. There were not
distinct thresholds for each individual country.
52
EC, “Council Regulation No. 2699/2000 of 4 December 2000,” December 4, 2000, 3.
53
EC, “Cap Reform,” June 12, 2007.
54
“The main aim of the single payment is to guarantee farmers more stable incomes. Farmers can decide
what to produce in the knowledge that they will receive the same amount of aid, allowing them to adjust
production to suit demand. To be eligible for the single payment, a farmer requires payment entitlements.
These are calculated on the basis of the payments received by the farmer during a reference period (historical
model) or the number of eligible hectares farmed during the first year of implementation of the scheme
(regional model).” See EC, “Direct Payments,” July 11, 2006.
55
EC, “Reform of the common market organization in fruit and vegetables,” June 12, 2007.
56
The Fruit and Vegetable CMO deals with both fruit and vegetables for both the fresh market and for
processing.

6-14
compliance” requirement, to devote a minimum of 10 percent of their total operational budget
towards environmental measures.57 Crisis management programs organized by the PO will
be one half financed by the EU and will include harvest insurance, help securing loans, and
financing of administrative costs of setting up mutual funds.58 Other reforms under the fruit
and vegetable CMO include partial EU financing of organic production, funding for EU
promotion of consumption, and €8 ($9.6) million in 100 percent financed aid for distribution
to schools, hospitals, and charitable bodies, up to 5 percent of the quantity marketed by a
PO.59

Once the total fruit and vegetable budget has been allocated, the EU Member states then have
the ability to disburse those funds in the manner they see fit. Therefore, the impact of the 2008
CAP Reform will vary depending on how each EU Member State disburses the funds.60 The
Greek government announced that it will allocate €11.8 ($14.2) million of its awarded
funding to the peach industry over the five year period between 2008 and 2013.61 The
allocation of the payments under the single payment scheme (SFP) must be decoupled from
production, and therefore will be based on historical bearing hectarage and not the quantity
produced.

There are two alternatives to how the €11.8 ($14.2) million may be distributed through the
SFP scheme in Greece. The government may award the SFPs based on historical cultivators
and their hectarage regardless of what market that product was destined for historically. The
funds may also be disbursed through SFPs based on the land area that was traditionally used
for deliveries made for processing. In either case, the land area base used to allocate the
payments would be based on a historical average of hectares cultivated. The number of years
used as the historical base has yet to be determined.

The second option, where SFPs are based on hectarage historically used for production
destined for processing, is preferred by Greek processors because it would most likely insure
a supply of raw material to canneries. The industry’s representatives are confident that the
SFPs will be allocated to historical bearing hectares utilized for deliveries to processing.
Industry representatives recognize that their historically stable supply of raw material may be
threatened because the SFP system provides the opportunity for peach farmers to pull their
trees, withdraw from the sector, and grow other products. However, they estimate that these
withdrawals will not be significant and the CAP Reform will therefore have little impact on
the industry’s supply of raw material.62

There is uncertainty as to how the new CAP reform will impact the structure of the Spanish
canning industry. If payments are made per hectare and not based on contracted deliveries to
canners, growers may be less likely to supply canners because prices are much higher in the
fresh market and are comparable for the purée market.63 As a result, there is concern about the
potential for a supply shortage and increasing costs of raw materials destined for canning.
According to canning industry officials, some canners believe the industry’s goal will
eventually be to develop their own orchards in order to have a guaranteed supply of

57
EC, “Cap Reform,” June 12, 2007.
58
AgraEurope, “SFP Extension Will Aid Fruit and Vegetable Sector Liberalization,” August 31, 2007.
59
EC, “Cap Reform,” June 12, 2007.
60
EC, “Single Farm Payment Scheme-the concept,” November 7, 2006, 2.
61
Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Imathia, Greece, August 10, 2007.
62
Ibid.
63
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Alicante, Spain, August 6, 2007.

6-15
50–60 percent of the needed fruit.64 However, other industry officials point out that such a
plan would not be a feasible or profitable solution to the problem owing to other factors, such
as a lack of growing experience and expertise.65 There is also concern about the level of
funding in Spain that will be allocated to the peach and pear industries versus other fruits and
vegetables. Unlike in Greece, where the payment amount is known and there is some
confidence about the disbursement method, the Spanish government has not yet announced
which specific fruit and vegetable sectors will receive payments. Nevertheless, in both
countries, the CAP reform is likely to pressure farms to consolidate and increase size in order
to increase hectares and thereby increase their access to EU support.66

Trade Practices

The EU maintains import tariffs between 15.2 percent and 19.2 percent ad valorem for canned
peaches, 16.0 percent and 19.2 percent ad valorem for canned pears, and 13.6 percent and
19.2 percent ad valorem for canned fruit mixtures.67 Preferential duty rates apply to imports
from Chile and South Africa

Market Factors

Input Costs and Availability

The primary input costs for processors in both Spain and Greece are raw materials, cans,
labor, and other items (e.g., overhead). Costs vary significantly by container size, pack, and
type of canned product being sold.68 The same specific cost items make up similar shares of
the overall Greek and Spanish industries cost structure. In 2006, however, as shown in
table 6.16, the total Greek cost for producing a 1 kg can of peaches was 18 percent less than
in Spain, primarily as a result of lower costs for other items and for fresh fruit.

The cost of raw materials fluctuates from year to year as a result of weather, crops yields, and
demand and prices offered for fresh fruit from other sectors such as the fresh and purée
markets. Prices are set by negotiation between the growers and processors during cultivation
but before harvesting. The shortage of cling peaches available for processing and the high
prices during the 2003–04 marketing year resulted in Greek farmers receiving a record price
of €0.60 ($0.72) per kg from canners. Negotiated prices between processors and growers have
since stabilized owing to more regular weather and fresh production output. The price was
€0.23 ($0.28) per kg in 2006. However, the price in Spain has fluctuated significantly over
the course of the past two seasons even though fresh production has been stable and
substantial.

64
Ibid.
65
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Murcia, Spain, August 7, 2007.
66
Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff, Murcia, Spain and Imathia, Greece, August 2007.
67
EC, TARIC database.
68
Various products include different cuts such as halved, sliced, and diced fruit, as well as packed in a
variety of liquids, such as syrup, fruit juice, or water.

6-16
Table 6.16 Canned peaches: Production costs in Greece and Spain
Items Cost per 1kg can Share of total
Euros Percent
Greek production costs:
Raw material 0.16 30
Can .13 24
Labor .05 9
Other .20 38
Total .54 100
Spanish production costs
Raw material .20 30
Can .15 23
Labor .06 9
Other .25 38
Total .66 100
Sources: FNACV, 8th World Canned Deciduous Fruit Conference; Industry officials, interviews by Commission staff,
Spain and Greece; Commission estimates.

Negotiated prices for peaches are highest for the choice or first quality peaches; second
quality peaches receive a lower price. In Greece, second quality peaches for canning received
€0.16 ($0.19) per kg in 2007. Peaches sold to freezers received €0.25 ($0.30) per kg. This
price is higher because those products are generally supplied and purchased out of the peak
season.69 The price of pears fluctuates in a manner similar to peaches and depends upon the
success of the crop.

While the availability of raw materials for canners may be altered as a result of the CAP
reform, another important factor will be the growing demand for fresh fruit in the purée
market. Purée has historically taken low quality, surplus peaches for much lower prices.
However, demand for purée has been rising rapidly. Accordingly, prices paid for peaches for
purée have risen and are expected to continue to rise as demand for purée products increases
in the primary export markets of Russia and Eastern Europe. Purée producers are also able
to pay higher prices for peaches because other input costs are much lower for purée
production than for traditional canners; purée processing lines are almost entirely mechanized
so very little labor is needed. Farmers also prefer selling their product for purée because
growing costs are lower.70

The purée market is expanding quickly and almost all Greek peach canners have a purée line.
These lines are reported to cost between €1.50 ($1.81) and €2.00 ($2.41) million to install,
although approximately 40 percent of the financing for investments into new product lines
is subsidized by EU investment laws.71 This expansion is increasing demand for peaches
because purée requires significantly more raw material.72 This expanding market is expected

69
Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Imathia, Greece, August 10, 2007.
70
Growing practices for peaches for purée require only two pickings instead of three because appearance
and size do not affect the final product. As a result, labor costs associated with tree thinning are lower.
Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Imathia, Greece, August 10, 2007.
71
Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Imathia, Greece, August 10, 2007.
72
It takes about 2 tons of raw peaches to produce 3 tons of canned peaches, but it takes 3–4 mt of raw
peaches to produce one of purée. Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Imathia, Greece,
August 10, 2007.

6-17
to increase the demand significantly for raw materials and may change the current pricing
structure of the canned peach industry.73

Both field and canning labor is considered to be abundant in Spain and Greece. In both
countries, immigrants comprise a large part of the labor pool. The availability of immigrant
labor is steady because wages paid in Spain and Greece are substantially greater than what
workers can earn in their home countries.74 75 Immigrants with temporary work status have
to be invited to work in the EU and labor is generally obtained through employment agencies
in Spain. Insurance and social program costs are paid to the state for these workers. Average
hourly factory and field wages in Spain are €10.00 ($12.05) and €7.00 ($8.43), respectively.
In Greece, factory and field wages are €8.00 ($9.64) and €5.00 ($6.02), respectively.76

Transportation Costs and Distribution

Transportation costs are an important input cost for canners to manage in order to successfully
market their products abroad. EU producers and exporters serve a wide variety of different
markets, each with different product preferences and market structures. Therefore, distribution
networks vary by the export market.77 Transportation costs are often the focus of price
negotiations between canners and their clients.

EU canners have significant competitive advantages in transportation costs to the Eastern

United States, Russia, and intra-EU markets. Infrastructure development is making shipments
within the EU less expensive and time consuming. For example, new EU funded construction
of major roads to Germany and Central Europe are expected to significantly decrease
distribution costs. However, the price per container trucked to EU markets can vary
significantly, depending on the timing of the route.78 New road development in Greece is also
lowering the costs for trucking by cutting the time and distance to the major port in
Thessaloniki almost in half.79 Officials reported that shipments from the Pella region of
Greece ex factory to the port, including handling, are generally between €300 ($361) and
€400 ($482) per container. The transportation cost per container from the major peach
production regions of Greece to Russia, is generally around €1,300 ($1,566).

Both Spain and Greece are also within close proximity to the east coast of the United States.
Greek industry officials reported that Greek canners can ship to the east coast of the United
States at a competitive price to what it costs U.S. canners in California to ship east. Industry
officials reported that it generally costs approximately €2,000 ($2,410) per container to ship
to New York.80

73
Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Imathia, Greece, August 10, 2007.
74
Dunn, “Greek Peach pack on course despite competition for fruit,” Foodnews, July 27 2007.
75
Industry official, interview with Commission staff, Imathia, Greece, August 10, 2007.
76
FNACV, 8th World Canned Deciduous Fruit Conference-Sacramento, April 2007.
77
For example, Cofrusa, a Spanish processing company, ships to a distributor in Hamburg that supplies
the major supermarkets in Germany. However, in the U.K., Cofrusa owns a distributor that sells to the major
supermarkets. Industry official, interview with Commission staff, Murcia, Spain, August 6, 2007.
78
Prices vary by season and demand; shipments by truck on their return trip is generally less expansive
than those on the first leg of a trip.
79
Industry official, interview by Commission staff, Imathia, Greece, August 10, 2007.
80
Ibid.

6-18
Bibliography
AgraEurope. “CAP Monitor, Section 13-A (Fresh Fruit and Vegetables).” August 10, 2000.

AgraEurope. “SFP Extension Will Aid Fruit and Vegetable Sector Liberalization.” August 31, 2007.

Agrosynergie. Evaluation of Measures Regarding Fresh and Processed Peaches, Nectarines,and Pears.
Framework Contract n" 30-CE-0035027/00-37, October 2006.
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/peache/sum_en.pdf.

Davias, Orestas on behalf of the Hellenic Foreign Trade Board. “Eat a Peach.” Greek Gourmet Traveler
Issue 3, Summer 2006 http://www.kerasma.gr/UserFiles/File/GREEKGOURMET_VOL_03.pdf,
and http://www.hepo.gr/site/IFEPOLAND/FilesPdf/Greek%20Peaches.pdf.

Dunn, Derri. “Greek Peach Pack on Course Despite Competition for Fruit.” Foodnews, July 27, 2007.

European Commission (EC). “CAP reform: Fruit and Vegetable reform will raise competitiveness,
promote consumption, ease market crises and improve environmental protection.” June 12, 2007.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/810&format=HTML&aged=0&la
nguage=EN&guiLanguage=en (accessed August 8, 2007).

——. “Council Regulation No. 2699/2000 of 4 December 2000.” December 4, 2000, 3.

——. “Commission Regulation (EC) No 705/2007 of 21 June 2007, Setting the amount of the aid for
pears for processing for the 2007/2008 marketing year.” June 22, 2007.

——. “Direct Payments.” July 11, 2006. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets/sfp/index_en.htm

——. “Final adoption of the general budget of the European Union for the
financial year 2007.” March 16, 2007. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:077:
som:en:html (accessed October 18, 2007).

——. “Reform of the common market organization in fruit and vegetables.”

June 12, 2007. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/capreform/fruitveg/index_en.htm (accessed
August 8, 2007).

——. “Single Farm Payment Scheme-the concept.” November 7, 2006.

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets/sfp/index_en.htm (accessed October 22, 2007).

——. TARIC database. http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds/tarhome_en.htm.

Eurostat. General and Regional Statistics Database. “Agriculture and Fisheries.”

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=0,1136206,0_45570467&_dad=portal&_sch
ema=PORTAL (accessed various dates).

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), FAOSTAT Production Database,
http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx (accessed various dates).

6-19
FreshInfo News. “Spanish Pears Strong.” September 8 2007.
http://www.freshinfo.com/index.php?s=n&ss=nd&sid=43354&s_txt=spanish+pears+strong&s_d
ate=0&ms=6.9035987854004&offset=0 (accessed September 24, 2007).

Global Trade Information Service, Inc. (GTIS). World Trade Atlas Database.

National Federation of Associations of the Industry of Conservas Vegetales (FNACV). “Spain Country
Report.” Presentation for 8th World Canned Deciduous Fruit Conference in Sacramento,
California, 2007.

Navarro, J Rodriguez. “The Peach Industry in Spain: State of Art, Research, Development.” Paper
presented at the 1st Mediterranean Peach Symposium conference in Agrigento, Italy.
September 10, 2003. http://www.unipa.it/medpeach/proceedings/Spain.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Economic Research Service (ERS). (Authors: John Dunmore,
Jason Bernstein, Linda Calvin, Todd Morath, and Thomas Vollrath). Competition in the Canned
Peach Industry. Staff Paper No. 9901. Washington DC: USDA, January 1999, 1–2.

——. “European Union: Basic Information.” www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/EuropeanUnion/basicinfo.htm

(accessed various dates).

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS). (Author: Robert Knapp).
Canned Peach Situation in Selected Countries, World Horticulture Trade and Export
Opportunities, August 2003.

——. (Author: Robert Knapp). Canned Peach Situation in Selected Countries, World Horticulture
Trade and Export Opportunities, January 2006.

——. (Author: Hilde Brans). European Union Agricultural Situation, EU Fruit and Vegetable Regime,
GAIN Report No. E21058, May 2, 2001.

——. (Author: Arantxa Medina). Spain Decidous Fruit Annual 2007. GAIN Report No. SP7026,
August 23, 2007.

——. (Author: Stamatis Sekliziotis). Greece Canned Deciduous Fruit Annual 2006. GAIN Report
No. GR6016, December 12, 2006.

6-20
CHAPTER 7
The Industry in Thailand
Despite insignificant domestic production of fresh peaches and pears, Thailand became a
leading global exporter of canned peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures during 2002–06. In
2006, Thailand was the leading global exporter of canned fruit mixtures and the fifth largest
exporter of both canned pears and peaches.1 The United States is the principal market for
Thailand’s canned peach and canned pear exports, while canned fruit mixtures are exported
to a number of destinations, including the United States, the European Union, and Japan.2
Although Thailand is not able to grow commercial quantities of deciduous fruit for canning
because of its tropical climate, it has been a leading global producer and exporter of canned
pineapple for many years.3 Because of its lack of domestic production of deciduous fruit,
Thailand is highly dependent on imported canned peaches and pears for its canning industry.
Thailand’s peach and pear canning industry is almost entirely accounted for by Dole
Thailand Ltd., of which the Dole Food Company is the majority owner. Dole’s operations
in Thailand involve importing canned fruit in larger containers and repackaging it into
smaller plastic containers for export. More than 90 percent of Dole Thailand’s production
of processed peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures is exported, with the remainder sold in
Thailand’s modern trade4 markets under the Dole brand.

Thailand’s competitive advantages in producing canned fruit are based primarily on a history
of canning tropical fruit, relatively inexpensive labor, and technological investments
provided by Dole Food Co. that allow Dole Thailand production facilities to meet U.S. food
safety and quality requirements. Thailand’s current competitive disadvantage is its near total
dependence on imports of canned fruit for repackaging and its distance from major
consuming markets. However, Dole Thailand is able to secure canned fruit supplies from
multiple countries through Dole Food Company’s worldwide transportation network and
procurement system. Additionally, the Thai government allows importers to receive refunds
on imports of canned fruit used in processing and for reexport.5

Structure of the Industry

Processing
Thailand has a significant and developed canning sector, mainly for tropical fruits such as
pineapple, which are grown in abundance locally. Its canning operations for peaches and
pears are much more limited and the vast majority of Thailand’s production of canned
peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures is believed to be accounted for by Dole Thailand Company

1
Data for global trade in canned fruit mixtures include mixtures of all types of fruits, including peaches
and pears. GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.
2
GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.
3
USDA, ERS, Fruit and Tree Nuts Situation and Outlook Yearbook, October 2006, 41.
4
“Modern trade” is a term used in many foreign countries that refers to modern supermarkets,
convenience stores, and shopping centers.
5
Thai government officials, interview by Commission staff, Washington, DC, September 5, 2007.

7-1
Limited (Ltd).6 This company was created in 1972, initially canning pineapple and tropical
fruit salads before adding other fruits in subsequent years.7 Dole Food Company8 is the
majority shareholder of Dole Thailand along with unnamed minority investors.9 Few other
Thai firms produce fruit mixtures among other canned products on the same equipment and
machinery used in canning pineapple. Dole Thailand’s large volume multifruit canning
plants are located in Hua Hin (600,000 square feet) and Chumphon (400,000 square feet),
near the Gulf of Thailand, with plants producing canned peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures
on separate, dedicated lines.10 11 All of Dole Thailand’s peach and pear production is from
these two plants. More than 90 percent of Dole Thailand’s production of canned peaches,
pears, and fruit mixtures is exported, with the remainder sold in Thailand’s modern trade
supermarkets under the Dole brand.12

Thai production data on canned peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures are not publicly available.
However, Thai export data on canned fruit provide an indication of production trends, as
most output is exported (table 7.1).13 Thailand is unique in that its primary inputs (peaches
and pears), are not sourced domestically in fresh form. Canned peaches and pears are
imported, mainly in institutional size metal cans,14 from multiple countries worldwide and
repackaged.15 This process involves opening cans, inspecting the contents to insure Dole’s
size and quality specifications are met, discarding the unacceptable fruit pieces, and
packaging the remaining fruit into smaller plastic containers.16

Fruit bowls17 (or cups18), introduced in 1998, and plastic jars,19 introduced in 2003, have
allowed Dole to achieve a significant market share for packaged fruit in North America.20
These products have driven Dole’s growth in the North American canned fruit market as
consumption of traditional fruit in cans has remained relatively static with consumers opting
for canned fruit in innovative packaging or fresh fruit.21 Dole Thailand’s plants produce in
excess of 70 percent of Dole Food Company’s fruit bowl and plastic jar products, with the

6
Dole Food Company officials, telephone interview by Commission staff, September 26, 2007.
7
Ibid.
8
Dole Food Company, Inc. is the world's largest producer and marketer of fresh fruit, fresh vegetables
and fresh cut flowers. Dole also markets a line of packaged foods and frozen fruit.
http://www.dole.com/index.jsp (accessed September 14, 2007).
9
Dole Food Company officials, telephone interview by Commission staff, September 26, 2007.
10
Ibid.
11
Dole Food Company, Inc., “2005 Annual Report,” 2006, 48.
12
U.S. government official, Bangkok, Thailand, e-mail message to Commission staff, March 26, 2007.
13
Thailand’s domestic consumption of canned peaches, pears, and fruit mixes is relatively low, as such
products are more expensive and consumers reportedly traditionally prefer fresh fruit. Thai government
officials, Office of Commercial Affairs, Royal Thai Embassy, interview by Commission Staff, September 5,
2007.
14
Dole imports some frozen fruit into Thailand from its frozen food facility in Atwater, CA for use in its
canning operations. Dole Food Company, telephone interview by Commission staff, September 26, 2007.
15
U.S. government official, Bangkok, Thailand, e-mail message to Commission staff, March 26, 2007.
16
Dole Food Company officials, telephone interview by Commission staff, September 26, 2007.
17
Dole’s fruit bowls are single serving plastic cups that range in size from three to seven ounces and were
developed as a convenient alternative in the snack food market, especially for school age children.
18
“Fruit cup” is the generic name for the single serving product and “fruit bowl” is the name used by Dole
for marketing purposes.
19
Dole’s fruit jars are 24.5 ounce multiple serving plastic resealable jars and are an alternative to fruit in
cans.
20
Dole Food Company, Inc., “2005 Annual Report,” 2006, 38.
21
Dole Food Company, Inc, “Form 10-K, Fiscal Year Ended December 30, 2006," 2007, 7.

7-2
Table 7.1 Peaches and pears: Thai production, imports, and exports, 2002–06
Items 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Metric tons
Peaches:
Fresh production (a) (a) 87 75 63
Imports of canned product 17,111 11,232 23,344 30,847 25,590
Imports of fresh product 111 35 130 179 128
Exports of canned product 7,748 11,479 18,295 21,831 27,217
Pears:
Fresh production (a) (a) 214 152 248
Imports of canned product 3,537 2,660 8,513 10,347 7,975
Imports of fresh product 5,289 25,501 35,311 42,267 43,330
Exports of canned product 1,752 3,119 4,426 5,514 5,220
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database; Royal Project Foundation.
a
Not available.

remainder processed in the Philippines.22 In addition to peaches, pears, and mixed fruit bowls
and jars, Dole Thailand also processes canned pineapple, mandarin oranges, tropical fruit,
and cherries into plastic containers at these two plants.23 Because of the success of its fruit
bowl and fruit jar sales, Dole has made additional investments in its Asian canneries and,
since 2005, has packed more fruit bowls and plastic jars than traditional metal cans.24 As
reported by market research firm IRI, Dole’s fruit bowl products had a 51 percent share of
the retail market for plastic fruit cups in the United States in 2006, and Dole’s fruit jars had
a 45 percent retail market share in 2006.25

Growing
Thailand’s limited production of deciduous fruits, including peaches and pears, is mainly in
the more temperate Northern region, which represents a quarter of Thailand’s forested area
and where the majority of its hill tribes live.26 Most of this fruit production is supported by
the Royal Project Foundation27 in order to assist hill tribes in producing sufficient
agricultural crops to improve their standard of living and discourage opium poppy
production.28 Production of high quality deciduous fruit in Northern Thailand is limited by
two main factors: the lack of suitable fruit tree cultivars that might grow there and
insufficient chilling days.29

22
Dole Food Company, Inc. “2005 Annual Report,” 2006, 48.
23
Ibid.
24
Dole Food Company, Inc, “Form 10-K, Fiscal Year Ended December 30, 2006," 2007, 15.
25
Ibid., 6.
26
The hill tribes are ethnic groups living in Northern Thailand, Laos, and Burma.
27
Founded by Thailand’s King Bhumibol Adulyadej in 1969, the Royal Project Foundation is an initiative
designed to fight rural poverty and empower the hill tribes in Thailand’s five northern provinces. Royal
Project Foundation.
28
Department of Foreign Trade, Thailand Ministry of Commerce, USITC written testimony,
July 23, 2007, 1.
29
Chilling days are required for trees to break dormancy and for subsequent normal flower and bud
development, which in turn will allow for normal fruit growth.

7-3
Trade
The Thai industry’s exports of canned peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures grew significantly
during 2002–06, with the United States the leading destination for all of these products,
reflecting the increasing popularity of packaged fruit bowls and plastic jars containing
peaches and pears. Thailand’s growth in exports is made possible by imports of canned
peaches and pears for repackaging, which have also risen substantially during 2002–06.

Thailand’s MFN applied and bound tariff rates for imports of canned peaches, pears, and
fruit mixtures are 30 percent ad valorem.30 Under Section 19 of the Thai Customs Act,31 the
Thai government provides duty drawback for the refund of import duties already paid on
imported goods which have undergone production, mixing, assembling, or packing, and are
then exported within one year from the day of importation.32

Thailand is a member of the ASEAN free trade area and has negotiated a series of free trade
agreements (FTAs) since 2000 to increase bilateral trade and improve access for lower cost
inputs,33 including canned fruit34 from two of its leading suppliers, Australia and China. The
Thailand-Australia FTA and the Thailand-New Zealand Closer Economic Relationship
(CER) were both implemented on January 1, 2005, and will eliminate all tariffs between
each country by 2020. Under these two agreements, Thailand’s import tariffs for canned
peaches, pears, and mixtures will go to zero in 2010.35 Additionally, China and Thailand
eliminated tariffs on all fresh fruits and vegetables on October 1, 2003, under the “Early
Harvest Scheme”36 of the ASEAN-China FTA framework.37 China is a leading supplier of
both fresh and canned peaches and pears to Thailand.38 Thailand is presently in the early
stages of negotiations for a FTA with the European Union.39 Reduced tariffs for EU canned
fruits imported into Thailand would benefit Thailand’s fruit processing industry as Greece
is the leading supplier of canned peaches to Thailand, and France and Italy currently provide
modest volumes of pears to Thailand.40 The United States began FTA negotiations with
Thailand in July 2004 but these negotiations were suspended in September 2006. If U.S.
tariffs on canned fruit imports41 from Thailand are reduced under an FTA, Thailand’s access
for canned fruit exports to the U.S. market would be improved and potentially encourage

30
APEC Tariff Database and U.S government official, U.S. Embassy, Thailand, e-mail message to
Commission staff, September 27, 2007.
31
The Customs Department of the Kingdom of Thailand Website.
32
U.S government official, U.S. Embassy, Thailand, e-mail message to Commission staff, September 27,
2007.
33
Although duty drawbacks are permitted on Thai imports that will be eventually reexported, this process
requires submitting several forms for documentation and then approval is needed by Thailand’s Ministry of
Commerce, which reportedly can be costly and time consuming.
34
APEC Tariff Database.
35
Thailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
36
Under the Early Harvest Scheme, the HTS coverage is limited to the specified codes in HTS
Chapters 1–8. Fresh fruit is found in HTS Chapter 8 but canned fruit is in HTS Chapter 20 and would not be
included in the Early Harvest Scheme. Thai government official, Office of Commerical Affairs, Royal Thai
Embassy, email message to Commission staff, September 27, 2007.
37
USDA, FAS, Thailand Trade Policy Monitoring, February 23, 2007, 2–3.
38
GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.
39
Thai government official, Office of Commerical Affairs, Royal Thai Embassy, email message to
Commission staff, September 10, 2007.
40
GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.
41
The U.S. MFN import tariffs on canned pears is 15.3 percent ad valorem, 16.0 percent on canned
peaches, and 5.6 percent on fruit mixtures. USITC, Tariff Information Center.

7-4
greater exports to the United States from Thailand. Also, since the United States is a leading
supplier of canned peaches and pears to Thailand,42 reductions of Thailand’s import tariffs
on canned fruit under an FTA could result in greater imports from the United States.

Exports
Thailand’s exports of canned peaches increased by more than 250 percent during 2002–06,
amounting to 27,217 mt valued at $47.4 million in 2006 (table 7.2).43 The United States
accounted for 89 percent of these exports in 2006 with Canada and the Netherlands largely
making up the remainder. Thailand’s exports of canned pears also increased dramatically
during 2002–06, amounting to 5,220 mt valued at $9.72 million in 2006 (table 7.3).44 The
United States accounted for 99 percent of these exports in 2006 with the remainder being
shipped to Canada and Australia. Thailand’s exports of fruit mixtures45 increased by
28 percent during 2002–06, amounting to 96,673 mt valued at $87.6 million in 2006,46 with
the United States accounting for 56 percent of exports in 2006 and Japan, Canada, and
Germany much of the rest (table 7.4).

Imports
In most years of the period under review, Thai imports of canned peaches and pears were
principally from the following countries: United States (peaches and pears), China (peaches
and pears), Greece (peaches), and South Africa (pears).47 Thailand’s imports of peaches
increased by 50 percent during 2002–06, amounting to 25,590 mt valued at $21.6 million
in 2006 (table 7.5).48 Greece, the United States, and China were the leading suppliers in
2006. Thailand’s imports of canned pears increased by 125 percent during 2002–06,
amounting to 7,975 mt valued at $7.3 million in 2006 (table 7.6).49 The United States, China,
and South Africa were the leading suppliers in 2006. The great bulk of Thai imports of
canned peaches and pears are repacked and exported as canned peaches, pears, and fruit
mixtures. Relative to peaches and pears, imports of fruit mixtures were very small in
2001–06, amounting to 26 mt valued at $45,000 in 2006 (table 7.7).

42
GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.
43
Ibid.
44
Ibid.
45
This includes all fruit mixtures, which can contain multiple fruits in addition to peaches and pears.
46
GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.
47
Ibid.
48
Ibid.
49
Ibid.

7-5
Table 7.2 Canned peaches: Thai exports, by principal markets, 2002–06
Market 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
United States 6,486 9,812 16,540 19,592 24,341
Canada 971 709 879 1,427 1,210
Netherlands 157 274 626 657 1,076
Korea 0 34 53 83 232
South Africa 0 0 0 0 192
Other 134 650 197 72 166
Total 7,748 11,479 18,295 21,831 27,217
Value (1,000 US dollars)
United States 10,712 16,440 29,414 33,481 42,587
Canada 1,538 1,127 1,516 2,385 2,002
Netherlands 247 457 1,071 1,393 1,871
Korea 0 69 106 149 395
South Africa 0 0 0 0 315
Other 145 555 30 113 271
Total 12,642 18,647 32,139 37,521 47,441
Unit value (dollars/metric ton)
United States 1,652 1,675 1,778 1,709 1,750
Canada 1,584 1,590 1,725 1,671 1,655
Netherlands 1,573 1,668 1,711 2,120 1,739
Korea - 2,029 2,000 1,795 1,703
South Africa - - - - 1,641
Other 1,082 854 152 1,569 1,633
Average 1,632 1,624 1,757 1,719 1,743
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

Table 7.3 Canned pears: Thai exports, by principal markets, 2002–06

Market 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
United States 1,751 3,108 4,424 5,512 5,173
Canada 0 0 0 0 39
Australia 0 1 1 1 6
Denmark 0 0 0 1 1
Japan 0 0 0 0 1
Other 1 10 1 0 0
Total 1,752 3,119 4,426 5,514 5,220
Value (1,000 US dollars)
United States 2,726 5,145 8,048 10,001 9,623
Canada 0 0 0 0 76
Australia 0 2 1 1 8
Denmark 0 0 0 5 6
Japan 0 0 0 0 4
Other 1 12 1 0 0
Total 2,727 5,159 8,050 10,009 9,722
Unit value (dollars/metric ton)
United States 1,557 1,655 1,819 1,814 1,860
Canada - - - - 1,949
Australia - 2,000 1,000 1,000 1,333
Denmark - - - 5,000 6,000
Japan - - - - 4,000
Other 1,000 1,200 1,000 - -
Average 1,557 1,654 1,819 1,815 1,862
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

7-6
Table 7.4 Canned fruit mixtures: Thai exports, by principal markets, 2002–06
Market 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
United States 43,863 43,149 48,771 53,256 53,751
Japan 4,003 4,070 5,383 5,936 6,345
Canada 4,525 3,468 3,457 4,719 4,005
Germany 1,981 2,731 3,841 4,041 3,982
Netherlands 3,261 3,921 2,934 5,124 2,990
Other 17,775 22,099 20,602 21,058 25,600
Total 75,408 79,438 84,988 94,134 96,673
Value (1,000 US dollars)
United States 33,909 35,356 46,617 51,126 53,857
Japan 3,192 3,249 4,466 5,219 5,695
Canada 3,976 2,744 2,795 4,297 3,297
Germany 1,287 1,787 2,581 2,723 2,648
Netherlands 2,149 2,857 2,767 4,380 2,625
Other 12,766 15,361 15,146 15,738 19,472
Total 57,279 61,354 74,372 83,483 87,593
Unit value (dollars/metric ton)
United States 773 819 956 960 1,002
Japan 797 798 830 879 898
Canada 879 791 809 911 823
Germany 650 654 672 674 665
Netherlands 659 729 943 855 878
Other 718 695 735 747 761
Average 760 772 875 887 906
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

Note: Data are for HTS subheading 2008.92, canned fruit mixtures of all types, including those of peaches and pears.

Table 7.5 Canned peaches: Thai imports, by principal sources, 2002–06

Source 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
Greece 10,766 3,045 3,441 15,744 13,540
United States 799 4,688 9,929 7,005 7,335
China 2,549 1,578 1,881 3,458 1,408
Spain 1,278 340 7 4 1,241
Chile 684 180 1,567 1,204 1,106
Other 1,035 1,401 6,519 3,432 960
Total 17,111 11,232 23,344 30,847 25,590
Value (1,000 US dollars)
Greece 7,594 2,412 3,067 12,093 11,028
United States 680 4,081 8,625 5,775 6,424
China 1,732 1,373 1,536 2,583 1,134
Spain 959 269 8 5 1,096
Chile 552 158 1,455 1,142 1,020
Other 843 1,147 6,470 3,312 874
Total 12,360 9,439 21,161 24,911 21,576
Unit value (dollars/metric ton)
Greece 705 792 891 768 814
United States 851 871 869 824 876
China 679 870 817 747 805
Spain 750 791 1,143 1,250 883
Chile 807 878 929 949 922
Other 814 819 992 965 910
Average 722 840 906 808 843
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

7-7
Table 7.6 Canned pears: Thai imports, by principal sources, 2002–06
Source 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
United States 1,069 425 3,545 4,127 5,568
China 850 1 1,577 323 2,120
South Africa 90 1,223 2,270 1,747 271
France 13 10 5 9 8
Australia 400 310 0 1,741 5
Other 1,115 691 1,116 2,427 3
Total 3,537 2,660 8,513 10,374 7,975
Value (1,000 US dollars)
United States 945 366 3,163 3,545 5,244
China 599 2 1,115 253 1,747
South Africa 75 1,104 2,213 1,772 286
France 13 15 6 8 8
Australia 284 239 0 1,577 6
Other 943 592 1,029 2,229 3
Total 2,860 2,317 7,529 9,385 7,294
Unit value (dollars/metic ton)
United States 884 861 892 859 942
China 705 2,000 707 783 824
South Africa 833 903 975 1,014 1,055
France 1,000 1,500 1,200 889 1,000
Australia 710 771 - 906 1,200
Other 846 857 922 918 1,000
Average 809 871 884 905 915
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

Table 7.7 Canned fruit mixtures: Thai imports, by principal sources, 2002–06
Source 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Quantity (metric tons)
France 3 4 4 3 5
Thailand 0 25 36 0 16
China 22 1 2 5 3
United Kingdom 0 0 0 0 2
India 0 2 0 2 0
Other 2 3 0 0 0
Total 27 35 42 10 26
Value (1,000 US dollars)
France 10 13 14 12 20
Thailand 0 24 26 0 18
China 23 2 2 7 3
United Kingdom 0 0 0 3 2
India 0 2 0 3 0
Other 10 12 0 2 1
Total 43 53 44 26 45
Unit price (dollars/metric ton)
France 3,333 3,250 3,500 4,000 4,000
Thailand - 960 722 - 1,125
China 1,045 2,000 1,000 1,400 1,000
United Kingdom - - - - 1,000
India - 1,000 - 1,500 -
Other 5,000 4,000 - - -
Average 1,593 1,514 1,048 2,600 1,731
Source: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database

7-8
Competitive Factors
Government Programs, Regulatory Compliance, and Trade
Practices
According to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), the government of Thailand maintains
certain programs to promote trade in processed agricultural products that could be deemed
export subsidies.50 These programs include tax benefits, import duty reductions, preferential
financing for exporters, and low interest loans for exporters targeting new markets. However,
Thailand government representatives note that, with the exception of import duty reductions,
most of these programs are no longer in existence because of budgetary constraints.51
Government assistance is also provided for export promotions at trade shows and missions,
although the USDA notes that most of these promotions are intended for Thai exports to
other ASEAN member countries.52 The Thai Ministry of Commerce, through its Department
of Foreign Trade (DFT) and Department of Export Promotion (DEP), has a major role in
Thailand's export promotion program, although the DFT is more involved in promoting
products other than canned fruit. The DEP is more involved in promoting high value
products53 with trade shows and trade missions, wherein Thai exporters are provided
assistance with booth fees and the cost of shipping samples to some trade shows.54

Market Factors

Input Costs and Availability/Cost Structure

Production costs

An estimation of Thailand’s production costs for canned fruit was derived by subtracting the
import unit value from the export unit value, resulting in a ‘processing margin’ composed
of labor, packaging, machinery, other costs, and profit. Raw product cost would be the
import unit value since virtually all fruit used as raw material was imported in cans. Raw
product cost was added to the processing margin to calculate a total production cost.

In 2006, the raw product cost for canned peaches was $0.84 per kg or 48 percent of total cost
of $1.74 per kg, with the remaining 52 percent attributed to the processing margin of $0.90
per kg (table 7.8). Labor is a small share of total processing costs reportedly because of
widespread automation in Dole’s Thai plants.55 Since Dole imports all of its petroleum-

50
USTR, “Thailand,” 2006, 644.
51
Thai government officials, Office of Commercial Affairs, Royal Thai Embassy, interview by
Commission Staff, September 5, 2007.
52
USITC, Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, IV-23.
53
These include machinery, appliances, textiles, furniture, and processed food products like canned fruits,
spices, sauces and frozen poultry.
54
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service Website.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/cmp/com-study/1998/comp98-th.html (accessed February 23, 2007).
55
Dole Food Company officials, telephone interview by Commission staff, September 26, 2007.

7-9
Table 7.8 Canned peaches: Thai production costs, by category, 2006
Category Cost per 1kg can Percentage of total
Raw material $0.84 48
Labor $0.31 18
Can $0.09 5
Other $0.50 29
Total $1.74 100
Sources: GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database; USITC staff estimates.

based plastic containers from Europe,56 per unit container costs were likely greater than labor
costs in 2006.

Canned fruit inputs

The Dole Food Company has extensive global operations and is vertically integrated,
combining growing, processing, canning, shipping, and marketing functions.57 Dole Thailand
is able to secure canned fruit supplies from multiple countries through Dole’s worldwide
transportation network and procurement system. Dole sources products from several
countries,58 changing the volume it purchases from each country on a season-to- season basis
depending upon the cost and quality specifications of the available fruit.59 Because of price
changes that normally occur throughout the season, Dole generally negotiates prices a few
months ahead of making its purchases, rather than making long term purchase agreements
months in advance of fruit delivery.60

Labor costs

Wage rates in Thailand, although relatively high when compared with other Southeast Asian
countries, are low compared with wage rates in the United States and the European Union.
Most cannery workers in Thailand are paid minimum wage; wages in provinces where most
fruit canneries are located were $4.73 per day in Prachuab Khiri Khan, $4.63 per day in
Chumphon, and $5.35 per day in Chonburi.61 Unlike other fruit canneries in Thailand where
fruit canning is a labor intensive operation, Dole Thailand’s plants in Hua Hin and
Chumphon are highly automated, using production lines of a proprietary design with a
relatively smaller proportion of workers.62

Processing technology

Thailand’s major processed food exporters have expanded their production capacity with
new machinery purchases or machinery upgrades to satisfy international quality standards
including U.S. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) and International

56
Ibid.
57
Nidhiprabha, “SPS and Thailand’s Exports of Processed Food,” October 1–3, 2002, 13–14.
58
Dole Food Company, Inc., “Form 10-K, Fiscal Year Ended December 30, 2006," 2007, 9.
59
Dole Food Company officials, telephone interview by Commission staff, September 26, 2007.
60
Ibid.
61
U.S. government official, U.S. Embassy, Thailand, email message to Commission staff, August 1, 2007.
62
Dole Food Company officials, telephone interview by Commission staff, September 26, 2007.

7-10
Organization for Standardization (ISO) certifications.63 Most Thai food processors use
imported machines and accessories in their production lines or imported turnkey facilities64
to increase quality and sanitation standards to meet the international standards required for
their largest markets: Japan, the United States, and the European Union.65 Many Thai
canning operations now comply with all U.S. and EU health and safety regulations.
Technology transfer from Dole to its subsidiary in Thailand has enabled Dole Thailand to
reach high quality standards for several processed products and meet HACCP and ISO66
standards. Smaller companies without a similar relationship with foreign partners may find
it more difficult to achieve such quality control.67

Infrastructure

Local infrastructure in Thailand affects transportation costs for raw materials going to the
processing plants and for finished products shipped from the plants. Both Dole Thailand
plants are located near deep water ports in the Gulf of Thailand. In 2004, the Thai
government awarded a 30 year production contract to Hong Kong based Hutchison Port
Holdings to add six additional berths to the Laem Chabang deep sea port. This port currently
has seven berths and the Thai government has promoted the increased use of this port to
reduce the volume of traffic on Bangkok’s Klong Toey port, which had handled 90 percent
of Thailand’s freight until 1998.68 The increased use of the Laem Chabang port may have
contributed to the expansion of Thai exports of canned peaches and fruit mixtures during
2004–06.

63
Agro Food Asia. http://www.agrofoodasia.com Thai_agrifood/Food_Industry/food_industry.html
(accessed September 17, 2007).
64
Royal Danish Embassy, Bangkok, Danish Trade Council, Sector Overview: The Market for Food
Processing and Packaging Machines in Thailand, November 24, 2006, 3.
65
USDA, FAS, Thailand Exporter Guide Report 2006, October 6, 2006, 15.
66
In January 1999, Dole Thailand Ltd. was certified to ISO 14001 - the International Organization for
Standardization's (ISO) requirements for Environmental Management Systems (EMS). Included in this
certification were Dole Thailand's pineapple and tropical fruit canning and farming operations which was the
first pineapple operation to be certified in Asia. In January 2001, Dole Thailand’s Chumphon cannery was
certified to ISO 14001. Included in this certification are the processing and packing of pineapples, tropical
fruit, juice blends and concentrates, and the manufacture of metal packaging.
67
Nidhiprabha, “SPS and Thailand’s Exports of Processed Food,” October 1–3, 2002, 14.
68
EIU, Country Profile 2007:Thailand, 2007, 22.

7-11
Bibliography
Agro Food Asia. http://www.agrofoodasia.com/Thai_agrifood/Food_Industry/food_industry.html
(accessed September 17, 2007).

APEC Tariff Database. http://www.apectariff.org/tdb.cgi/ff3235/apecmain.html (accessed

September 17, 2007)

Asopa,V.N. “Competitiveness in Pineapple Canning Industry.” Paper presented at 2003 Hawaii

International Conference on Business, Honolulu, HI, June 18–21, 2003.

Couse, Charlotte. “Paying the Cost of Survival.” Food News,. May 1999.

Department of Foreign Trade, Thailand Ministry of Commerce. Written submission to the U.S.
International Trade Commission in connection with inv. No. 332-485, Canned Peaches, Pears,
and Fruit Mixtures: Conditions of Competition between U.S. and Principal Foreign Supplier
Industries, July 23, 2007.

Dole Food Company, Inc. “Form 10-K, Fiscal Year Ended December 30, 2006." Westlake Village,
CA, 2007.

——. “Thailand ISO 14001 Certification (January).” Westlake Village, CA., 1999.

——. “2005 Annual Report.” Westlake Village, CA, 2006.

Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). Country Report July 2007: Thailand. 2007.

——. Country Profile 2007: Thailand. 2007.

Global Trade Information Service, Inc. (GTIS). World Trade Atlas Database.

Information Resources, Inc. (IRI). http://us.infores.com (accessed September 19, 2007).

Nidhiprabha, Bhanupong. “SPS and Thailand’s Exports of Processed Food.” Paper presented at Project
Launching Workshop, Royal Princes Hpoteh, Bangkok, October 1–3, 2002.

Royal Danish Embassy, Bangkok. Danish Trade Council. Sector Overview: The Market for Food
Processing and Packaging Machines in Thailand. November 24, 2006.

Royal Project Foundation.

http://www.doikham.com/general/english/index.html (accessed September 19, 2007).

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). (Authors: Sakchai
Preechajarn and Maysa Kunasirirat). Thailand Trade Policy Monitoring: Thai FTA Partners
Enjoy Tariff Advantage Over U.S. Suppliers. GAIN Report No. TH7022. February 23, 2007.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service (ERS). Exchange Rate Set.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/ExchangeRates/Data/NominalMonthlyCountryExchangeRates.xls
(accessed September 7, 2007).

——. Fruit and Tree Nuts Situation and Outlook Yearbook. Washington, DC: USDA, October 2006.

7-12
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). (Author: Sukanya
Sirikeratikul). Thailand Exporter Guide Report 2006. GAIN Report No. TH6105.
October 6, 2006.

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand.
USITC Publication 3911. Washington, DC: USITC, March 2007.

——. Tariff Information Center. http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/bychapter/index.htm (accessed

September 20, 2007).

United States Trade Representative (USTR). “Thailand.” 2006 National Trade Estimate Report on
Foreign Trade Barriers. Washington, DC: USTR, 2006.

Venkatesh, Sundar, Suman Neupane, and Mithlesh Agarwal. “Food and Beverage Industry in Thailand.”
School of Management, Asian Institute of Technology, 2004.

7-13
APPENDIX A
Request Letter
' 12/12/2006 11:17 FAX

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

US.HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
December 8,2006

Mr. Daniel R. Pearson,

chairman
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW
Washington, DC 20436

Dear Mr. Chairman:

It has come to the attention of the Committee on Ways and Means that U.S. canned fruit
industries, consisting of growers and processors of canned peaches (H.S. 2008.70.20), canned pears
(H.S. 2008.40.00), and canned fhit mixtures (H.S. 2008.92.90), are concerned about how imports of
such products are affecting the conditions of competition in the U.S.market for their products.

A significant problem for this Committee and the affected U.S.canned h i t industries is the
lack of information about the canned f i t sectors of certain major supplier countries to the U.S.
market, especially those that both grow and process peaches and pears (including China, Greece, and
Spain), both at the grower and processor levels. In order to assess more fully the nature and extent of
competition between principal foreign supplier countries and U.S.industries, both now and in the
future, the Committee needs additional information concerning the canned peach, canned pear, and
canned fkuit mixture industries.

Accordingly, the Committee requests that the International Trade Commission institute an
investigation under section 332(g) of the T d A c t of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)) and provide a report
on conditions of competition between €he canned peach, canned pear, and canned fruit mixture
industries in the United States and principal foreign supplier countries (such as China,Greece, Spain,
and Thailand). Special effort should be made, including field work if practicable, to collect data ftom
the aforementioned supplying countries that are new entrants to the global canned fiuit sector and/or
have little published historical data.

The Committee requests that the Commission provide'in its report, to the extent possible, data
and analysis separately for (1) canned peaches, (2) canned pears, and (3) canned fluit mixtures, with
any overlap among the industries clearly identified, covering the period 2003-2005,For each of the
three products, the Committee requests that the Commission, to the extent practicable, provide the
following infomation and analysis: ,

an overview of the canned peach, canned pear, and canned fiuit mixture industries in the
. United States and major supplier counhics (such as the named countries above), including
production of fiesh peaches and pears for processing, planted acreage and new plantings,
processing volumes, processing capacity, and consumption;

A-3
' 12/12/2006 11:17 FAX a 003

information on U.S. and foreign supplier imports and exports of canned peaches, canned pears,
and canned h i t mixtures, as well as the market segments in which U.S.imports are being
sold (e.g., retail, food service sector, or other);

a description of principal trade practices and government programs and measures affecting
production of the products (especially in China, Greece, and Spain); and,

a comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of these foreign competitor canned h i t

industries and the US. industries (including industry structure, input cost and availability,
processing technology, product innovation, government programs, exchange rates, and pricing;
and marketing regimes), and steps the respective industries are taking to increase their
competitiveness.

The Commission should report the results of the investigation no later than 12 months after
receipt of this letter. The Committee intends to make the report available to the public in its entirety.
Therefore, I request that the report not include any confidential business information.

Thank you for your assistance on this matter.

B E L THOMAS
Chairman

A-4
APPENDIX B
Federal Register Notices
6744 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Notices
should contact Margaret O’Laughlin Public Hearing: A public hearing
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Public Affairs Office (202-205-1819; in connection with the
[Investigation No. 332-485] [email protected]). Hearing investigation is scheduled to be
impaired individuals are advised that held at the U.S. International
Canned Peaches, Pears, and Fruit information on this matter can be Trade Commission Building, 500
Mixtures: Conditions of Competition obtained by contacting the TDD terminal E Street, SW., Washington, DC
Between U.S. and Principal Foreign on (202-20501810). General information beginning at 9:30 a.m. on July 12,
concerning the Commission may also be 2007. All persons shall have the
Supplier Industries
obtained by accessing its Internet server right to appear, by counsel or in
(http://www.usitc.gov). Persons with person, to present information
AGENCY: United States International Trade
mobility impairments who will need and to be heard. Requests to
Commission.
special assistance in gaining access to appear at the public hearing
ACTION: Institution of investigation and
the Commission should contact the Office should be filed with the Secretary,
scheduling of public hearing.
of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. United States International Trade
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
SUMMARY: Following receipt on of a request
requested by the Committee, the Washington, DC 20436, no later
on December 12, 2006, from the House
Commission will conduct an investigation than 5:15 p.m., June 28, 2007.
Committee on Ways and Means, the
and provide a report on competitive Any prehearing briefs (original
Commission instituted investigation No.
conditions for certain canned fruit and 14 copies) should be filed not
332-485, Canned Peaches, Pears, and Fruit
between U.S. and principal foreign later than 5:15 p.m., July 2, 2007.
Mixtures: Conditions of Competition
supplier industries during the period The deadlines for filing post-
between U.S. and Principal Foreign Supplier
2003–05. Data and analysis will be hearing briefs or statements is
Industries, under section 332(g) of the Tariff
provided for (1) Canned peaches, (2) 5:15 p.m., July 26, 2007. In the
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)).
canned pears, and (3) canned fruit event that, as of the close of
DATES: February 6, 2007: Date of institution.
mixtures, with any overlap among the business on June 28, 2007, no
June 28, 2007: Deadline for filing requests
industries clearly identified. In its report, witnesses are scheduled to
to appear at the public hearing.
the Commission will provide, to the extent appear at the hearing, the hearing
July 2, 2007: Deadline for filing prehearing
possible, the following: will be canceled. Any persons
briefs and statements.
! An overview of the canned peach, interested in attending the hearing
July 12, 2007, 9:30 am: Public hearing.
canned pear, and canned fruit mixtures as an observer or non-participant
July 26, 2007: Deadline for written
industries in the United States and major may call the Secretary
statements, including any posthearing
supplier countries (such as China, (202–205–2000) after June 28,
briefs.
Greece, Spain, and Thailand), including 2007, to determine whether the
December 12, 2007: Transmittal of report to
production of fresh peaches and pears for hearing will be held.
the Committee on Ways and Means.
processing, planted acreage and new Written Statements: In lieu of or
ADDRESSES: All Commission offices,
plantings, processing volumes, in addition to participating in the
including the Commission’s hearing rooms,
processing capacity, and consumption; hearing, interested persons are
are located in the United States
! Information on U.S. and foreign invited to submit written
International Trade Commission Building,
supplier imports and exports of canned statements concerning the
500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC. All
fruit mixtures, as well as the market investigation. All submissions
written submissions, including requests to
segments in which U.S. imports are being should be addressed to
appear at the hearing, statements, and
sold (e.g., retail, food service sector, or Secretary, United States
briefs, should be addressed to the
other); International Trade Commission,
Secretary, United States International Trade
! A description of principal trade 500 E Street, SW., Washington,
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
practices and government programs and DC 20436, and should be
Washington, DC 20436. The public record
measures affecting production of the received no later than the close of
for this investigation may be viewed on the
products (especially in China, Greece, business on July 26, 2007. All
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at
and Spain); and, written submissions must conform
http://edis.usitc.gov.
! A comparison of the strengths and with the provisions of section
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
weaknesses of these foreign competitor 201.8 of the Commission’s Rules
Industry-specific information may be
canned fruit industries and the U.S. of Practice and Procedure (19
obtained from Douglas Newman, Co-Project
industries (including industry structure, CFR 201.8)
Leader (202-205-3328;
input cost and availability, processing Section 201.8 of the rules
[email protected]), or Timothy
technology, product innovation, requires that a signed original (or
McCarty , Co-Project Leader (202-205-
government programs, exchange rates, a copy designated as an original)
3324; [email protected]), Office of
and pricing and marketing regimes), and and fourteen (14) copies of each
Industries, United States International Trade
steps the respective industries are taking document be filed. In the event
Commission, Washington, DC 20436. For
to increase their competitiveness. that confidential treatment of the
information on the legal aspects of this
As requested, the Commission will document is requested, at least
investigation, contact William Gearhart of
transmit its report to the Committee by four (4) additional copies must be
the Office of the General Counsel (202-205-
December 12, 2007.
3091; [email protected]). The media

B-3
 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 29, 2006 / Notices 6745

filed, in which the confidential

information must be deleted (see the
following paragraph for further
information regarding confidential
business information). The
Commission's rules do not authorize
filing submissions with the Secretary by
facsimile or electronic means, except
as permitted by section 201.8 of the
Commission’s Rules (19 C.F.R. 201.8)
(see Handbook for Electronic Filing
Procedures,
http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg
_notices/rules/documents/handbook_
on_electronic_filing.pdf.
Any submissions that contain
confidential business information must
also conform with the requirements of
section 201.6 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure
(19 CFR 201.6). Section 201.6 of the
rules requires that the cover of the
document and the individual pages be
clearly marked as to whether they are
the “confidential” or “nonconfidential''
version, and that the confidential
business information be clearly
identified by means of brackets. All
written submissions, except for
confidential business information, will
be made available in the Office of the
Secretary to the Commission for
inspection by interested parties. The
Committee has asked that the report
that the Commission transmits not
contain any confidential business
information. Any confidential business
information received by the
Commission in this investigation and
used in preparing the report will not be
published in a manner that would
reveal the operations of the firm
supplying the information.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: February 7, 2007.

Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E7–2363 Filed 2–12–07;
8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

B-4
 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Notices 37543

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Meridian, Idaho, was accepted April 20, interested in appearing at the hearing
2007. file their requests by the close of June
Bureau of Land Management This supplemental plat, was prepared 28, 2007, and stated that the hearing
to show new lots to the centerline of would be canceled if no requests were
[ID–957–1420–BJ]
State Highway No. 6, of sections 12, 13, received by that date. One request was
Idaho: Filing of Plats of Survey and 14, T. 43 N., R. 3 W., Boise received by the June 28 deadline, but it
Meridian, Idaho, was accepted April 26, was subsequently withdrawn on July 2,
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 2007. 2007. Accordingly, the Commission has
Interior. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land canceled the hearing. All other
ACTION: Notice of Filing of Plats of Management (BLM) will file the plat of information about the investigation,
Surveys. survey of the lands described below in including a description of the subject
the BLM Idaho State Office, Boise, matter to be addressed, contact
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Idaho, 30 days from the date of information, and procedures relating to
Management (BLM) has officially filed publication in the Federal Register. written submissions, remains the same
the plats of survey of the lands This survey was executed at the request as in the original notice. The public
described below in the BLM Idaho State of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to meet record for this investigation may be
Office, Boise, Idaho, effective 9 a.m., on certain administrative and management viewed on the Commission’s electronic
the dates specified. purposes: docket (EDIS) at http://www.usitc.gov/
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The plat representing the dependent secretary/edis.htm.
Bureau of Land Management, 1387 resurvey of the south boundary, By order of the Commission.
South Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709– portions of the east and west Issued: July 3, 2007.
1657. boundaries, subdivisional lines, and
William R. Bishop,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These meanders of the Snake River and islands
in the Snake River, and the subdivision Acting Secretary to the Commission.
surveys were executed at the request of
of sections 32 and 36, and the survey of [FR Doc. E7–13276 Filed 7–9–07; 8:45 am]
the Bureau of Land Management to meet
their administrative needs. The lands portions of the south and west BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

surveyed are: boundaries, subdivisional lines, the

The plat representing the dependent 2005–2006 meanders of the Snake River
resurvey of portions of the west and islands in the Snake River, and the NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
boundary, subdivisional lines, and the North Boundary of the Fort Hall Indian SPACE ADMINISTRATION
1960–1968 fixed and limiting Reservation, T. 4 S., R. 33 E., Boise [Notice: (07–051)]
boundaries in sections 6, 7, 17, 18 and Meridian, Idaho, was accepted May 16,
20, and Tract 40, and the subdivision of 2007. Notice of Information Collection Under
sections 6, 7, 17 and 18, the survey of Dated: July 3, 2007. OMB Review
the 1993–2003 meanders of the Snake Stanley G. French, AGENCY: National Aeronautics and
River in sections 6, 7, 17, 18 and 20, the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho. Space Administration (NASA).
survey of the 1993–2003 meanders of [FR Doc. E7–13344 Filed 7–9–07; 8:45 am]
certain islands in the Snake River, and ACTION: Notice of information collection
BILLING CODE 4310–GG–P under OMB review.
the metes-and-bounds survey of the
centerline of an existing flood control SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and
levee in the SE1⁄4 of the SW1⁄4 of section Space Administration, as part of its
6, T. 4 N., R. 40 E., Boise Meridian, INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION continuing effort to reduce paperwork
Idaho, was accepted June 6, 2007. and respondent burden, invites the
The plat representing the dependent [Investigation No. 332–485]
general public and other Federal
resurvey of a portion of the east agencies to take this opportunity to
boundary and a portion of the Canned Peaches, Pears, and Fruit
Mixtures: Conditions of Competition comment on proposed and/or
subdivisional lines, and the subdivision continuing information collections, as
of section 24, T. 16 S., R. 9 E., Boise Between U.S. and Principal Foreign
Supplier Industries required by the Paperwork Reduction
Meridian, Idaho, was accepted June 29, Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–13, 44
2007. AGENCY: United States International U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
This survey was executed at the Trade Commission. DATES: All comments should be
request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs ACTION: Cancellation of public hearing.
to meet certain administrative and submitted within 30 calendar days from
management purposes. The lands the date of this publication.
SUMMARY: On July 2, 2007, the only
surveyed are: scheduled witness for the hearing in ADDRESSES: All comments should be
This supplemental plat was prepared investigation No. 332–485, Canned addressed to Desk Officer for NASA;
to amend lotting in section 24, T. 3 S., Peaches, Pears, and Fruit Mixtures: Office of Information and Regulatory
R. 34 E., Boise Meridian, Idaho, was Conditions of Competition between U.S. Affairs; Room 10236; New Executive
accepted April 3, 2007. and Principal Foreign Supplier Office Building; Washington, DC 20503.
These surveys were executed at the Industries, scheduled for July 12, 2007, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
request of the USDA Forest Service to withdrew his request to appear. Requests for additional information or
meet certain administrative and Therefore, the public hearing in this copies of the information collection
management purposes. The lands investigation has been canceled. instrument(s) and instructions should
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES

surveyed are: Background: The Commission be directed to Mr. Walter Kit, NASA
This supplemental plat, showing published notice of institution of the PRA Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E
amended lotting created by the investigation and hearing in the Federal Street, SW., JE0000, Washington, DC
segregation of Mineral Survey No. 1659 Register on February 13, 2007 (72 FR 20546, (202) 358–1350,
in section 15, T. 41 N., R. 2 W., Boise 6744). The notice asked that persons [email protected].
B-5
VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:17 Jul 09, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JYN1.SGM 10JYN1
APPENDIX C
Summary of Views of Interested Parties
Sarb Johl, Chairman
California Cling Peach Board1
In his submission, Mr. Johl, speaking on behalf of the California Cling Peach Board, a non
profit, quasi government association representing 600 cling peach producers, 4 cling peach
canners, and 2 cling peach freezers in the State of California, stated that the U.S. cling peach
industry faces growing competition from alleged subsidized and low cost foreign canned
peach producers and that, as a result of those imports, the United States has gone from being
a net exporter of canned peaches in the mid 1980s to a net importer of canned peaches today.
Mr. Johl stated that the U.S. canned peach industry cannot survive without a strong U.S.
market, having already lost nearly all of its export markets in recent years to subsidized
canned peaches from Greece and Spain. Mr. Johl stated that, although Greece and Spain are
still competing in the U.S. market, China recently has emerged as a new leading supplier of
canned peaches to the U.S. market. Mr. Johl stated that, in spite of recent U.S. industry
efforts to reduce conditions of fresh peach oversupply and expand U.S. government
purchases, industry profitability has not been restored to desired levels.

Lizbeth Levinson, Garvey, Schubert Barer

on behalf of Liberty Gold Fruit Co., Ltd.2
In her submission, Ms. Levinson, counsel to the Liberty Gold Fruit Co., Ltd., stated that
there is a strong and growing demand in China for both fresh and processed peaches, driven
by an annual growth in domestic consumption of 20–30 percent for canned peaches, and
particularly for peaches in institutional size cans. Ms. Levinson stated that such demand
could result in China becoming an important importer of canned peaches in the future. As
Chinese production costs continue to rise owing to higher costs for raw peaches, Ms.
Levinson stated that prices of Chinese canned peaches for export will increase as canners of
export product, receiving no government support, are forced to compete for peaches with
canners for domestic consumption. Ms. Levinson stated that the trend in rising raw product
prices is consistent with rising food prices in China. A distinction should be made, according
to Ms. Levinson, between conditions of competition in the traditional canned fruit market
segment, dominated by sales of no. 10 cans traditionally to large institutional purchasers, and
the different market segment for sales of preserved fruit in plastic cups, where production
requires a higher quality, more costly fruit that competes principally in the higher end retail
market.

1
Sarb Johl, Chairman, California Cling Peach Board, written submission, July 26, 2007.
2
Lizbeth R. Levinson, counsel to Liberty Gold Fruit Co., Ltd., written submission, July 26, 2007.

C-3
Northwest Horticultural Council,
Pacific Northwest Canned Pear Service, and
Washington Oregon Canning pear Association3
In its submission, the Northwest Horticultural Council (Council), together with the Pacific
Northwest Canned Pear Service and the Washington Oregon Canning Pear Association,
stated that a 10-percent loss in the number of Bartlett pear growers in the Pacific Northwest
in recent years is due in part to an increase in competition from low cost imports of canned
pears from China and other principal foreign suppliers. The Council stated that, as
production costs of pears for canning have risen in recent years and grower prices for fresh
cannery pears have fallen, canned imports that once accounted for one percent or less of
domestic consumption now account for 18 percent of a declining U.S. consumption and the
principal foreign supplier of these imports is China. The Council stated that increasing
imports of low priced canned pears were reducing demand for domestically produced canned
pears which, in turn, impacted U.S. growers.

Apiradi Tantraporn, Director General

Department of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce
On behalf of The Royal Thai Government4
In her submission on behalf of The Royal Thai Government, Mrs. Tantraporn stated that the
production in Thailand of temperate zone fruits, including peaches and pears, is extremely
limited because of an unsuitable growing environment and that such fruit does not meet the
quality demanded of export market fruit and, as a result, production of peaches and pears in
Thailand is mainly limited to local consumption. According to Mrs. Tantraporn, Thai
producers do not export canned (i.e., in metal) peaches and pears, but instead export
preserved peaches and pears in plastic cups. Mrs. Tantraporn stated that Thailand imports
peaches and pears, including from the United States, as raw materials for further processing
and then exports preserved peaches and pears. Also, Mrs. Tantraporn stated that although
Thailand exports large amounts of canned fruit mixtures, 90 percent of such mixtures were
principally tropical fruit mixtures, the principal focus of Thai producers, and only about
10 percent of U.S. imports from Thailand were of fruit mixtures containing peaches and
pears.

3
Northwest Horticultural Council, written submission, July 23, 2007.
4
Apiradi Tantraporn, Director General, Department of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce, The Royal
Thai Government, written submission, July 27, 2007.

C-4