Chilean grape import date unlikely to change in 2008
Chilean grape import date unlikely to change in 2008
It is highly unlikely that 2008 will bring a change in the U.S. Department of Agriculture marketing order that would regulate what is essentially a cutoff date for some varieties of Chilean grapes.
Currently, Chilean grapes are allowed to enter the United States until April 20 before undergoing special inspections to meet regulations set forth by the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service. A proposal to change the existing marketing order would require specified varieties of Chilean grapes arriving in the United States after April 1 to be inspected before being shipped from U.S. ports. In those inspections, the grapes would have to meet U.S. No. 1 grade standards for shipping point.
This change has been a possibility in recent years, but thus far domestic grape interests in the Coachella Valley of California have been unable to win such changes.
Last Oct. 25, the Federal Register published a notice that re-opened the comment period with the Agricultural Marketing Service to consider data that are more current and revisit requirements for late-season Chilean grapes. There was a late-November deadline for comment, and AMS has been quiet since that time in offering new rules.
On Feb. 29, David Holzworth, the Washington, DC-based general counsel for the Chilean fruit export group, ASOEX, told The Produce News, "The advance sheets for the Federal Register to be published on Monday, March 3, have no listing for anything relating to MO 925 or Table Grape Import Regulation No. 4. This means that the date cannot be changed to April 3 this year, because no notice has been provided 30 days in advance of a date change. It is still theoretically possible that a notice could be published sometime between Monday, March 4, and March 19, advancing the date to sometime between April 4 and April 19. However, at this point, ASOEX doubts that a final rule will be published that affects the current beginning effective date of April 20 for the 2008 shipping season."
Barry Bedwell, president of the California Grape & Tree Fruit League, based in Fresno, told The Produce News March 3 that his board has members who are both importers and exporters. Thus, he said, "there is no consensus one way or the other" on shortening the import season for Chilean grapes.
John Pandol of Pandol Bros. Inc. in Delano, CA, who was among the California growers to start developing the Chilean fruit export business, has not supported the move to keep Chilean grapes out of the U.S. market after April 1. He said that the California desert grape deal starts May 6, plus or minus a week.
In a March 3 interview, Mr. Pandol said that insisting that Chilean grape imports vacate the U.S. market five weeks ahead of the Coachella harvest "is a weak argument." Later California deals follow one another much more closely than Coachella follows Chile, Mr. Pandol noted.
"As a grower, it is insulting to suggest that my business model is better with an inspector versus not," he said. "If the industry needs the government to save it from itself, if it has neither the accountability nor discipline to know when to pick its production correctly. I wouldn't brag about that."
"My speculation is that if AMS found it had merit, they would have published it," Mr. Pandol summed.
Currently, Chilean grapes are allowed to enter the United States until April 20 before undergoing special inspections to meet regulations set forth by the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service. A proposal to change the existing marketing order would require specified varieties of Chilean grapes arriving in the United States after April 1 to be inspected before being shipped from U.S. ports. In those inspections, the grapes would have to meet U.S. No. 1 grade standards for shipping point.
This change has been a possibility in recent years, but thus far domestic grape interests in the Coachella Valley of California have been unable to win such changes.
Last Oct. 25, the Federal Register published a notice that re-opened the comment period with the Agricultural Marketing Service to consider data that are more current and revisit requirements for late-season Chilean grapes. There was a late-November deadline for comment, and AMS has been quiet since that time in offering new rules.
On Feb. 29, David Holzworth, the Washington, DC-based general counsel for the Chilean fruit export group, ASOEX, told The Produce News, "The advance sheets for the Federal Register to be published on Monday, March 3, have no listing for anything relating to MO 925 or Table Grape Import Regulation No. 4. This means that the date cannot be changed to April 3 this year, because no notice has been provided 30 days in advance of a date change. It is still theoretically possible that a notice could be published sometime between Monday, March 4, and March 19, advancing the date to sometime between April 4 and April 19. However, at this point, ASOEX doubts that a final rule will be published that affects the current beginning effective date of April 20 for the 2008 shipping season."
Barry Bedwell, president of the California Grape & Tree Fruit League, based in Fresno, told The Produce News March 3 that his board has members who are both importers and exporters. Thus, he said, "there is no consensus one way or the other" on shortening the import season for Chilean grapes.
John Pandol of Pandol Bros. Inc. in Delano, CA, who was among the California growers to start developing the Chilean fruit export business, has not supported the move to keep Chilean grapes out of the U.S. market after April 1. He said that the California desert grape deal starts May 6, plus or minus a week.
In a March 3 interview, Mr. Pandol said that insisting that Chilean grape imports vacate the U.S. market five weeks ahead of the Coachella harvest "is a weak argument." Later California deals follow one another much more closely than Coachella follows Chile, Mr. Pandol noted.
"As a grower, it is insulting to suggest that my business model is better with an inspector versus not," he said. "If the industry needs the government to save it from itself, if it has neither the accountability nor discipline to know when to pick its production correctly. I wouldn't brag about that."
"My speculation is that if AMS found it had merit, they would have published it," Mr. Pandol summed.
