As the Tomato Suspension Agreement nears the end of its 90-day implementation period, Robert Guenther, executive vice president for the Florida Tomato Exchange, sat down with The Packer to share why the agreement hurts American tomato growers.
Q: The FTE has described the current agreement as a threat to the very survival of U.S. tomato producers. Can you walk us through how the agreement, in your view, disadvantages American growers?
Guenther: For decades, Mexican exporters have dumped tomatoes into the U.S. market below their cost of production, by margins as high as 273%, which are injuring American tomato farmers. These aren't opinions. These are findings from comprehensive U.S. government investigations, including a 2019 ruling from the Department of Commerce, a unanimous decision from the International Trade Commission in 2019, which found that these practices caused material injury to American growers, and a ruling by the Court of International Trade in 2025 affirming that imported Mexican tomatoes are being dumped. The 2019 Suspension Agreement and the previous four suspension agreements were supposed to stop this. Instead, it became a shield for repeated violations. It failed in its basic purposes — to shield U.S. tomato producers from dumped Mexican tomatoes and to ensure fair trade as required by U.S. law.
Q: There's a perception that this fight pits growers against each other — Florida versus Sinaloa. Is there a path to a collaborative tomato trade framework that supports both domestic producers and consumer access to affordable imports?
Guenther: This is not Florida versus Mexico. The petition to terminate the Suspension Agreement was backed by more than 60 bipartisan members of Congress from 11 states, the American Farm Bureau Federation, state Farm Bureaus from all nine major tomato-producing states, and multiple fruit and vegetable trade associations from across the country.
American tomato producers accepted all five of the suspension agreements in good faith and hoped Mexican tomato producers would in a “collaborative” effort, comply with the agreements. However, five iterations of suspension agreements over 28 years failed because of continued injurious dumping by Mexican tomato producers. The Mexican tomato industry has had its chance at bat to be collaborative five times. It is usually three strikes, and you are out. A sixth agreement will not yield any different result.
Finally, I do not term the current situation as “collaborative” when Mexican tomato imports have used unfair trade practices to relentlessly increase its volume, from 20% of the U.S. market to now over 70% of the market. The result is that the U.S. industry has lost most of the family farms in business in 1996, reduced acreage and the size of its crop, laid off workers and gradually fallen victim to the relentless increase in unfairly traded imports from Mexico. That's not a collaborative partnership — it's a one-sided arrangement that puts U.S. growers at a constant disadvantage. Until there's a level playing field, collaboration isn't on the table.
Q: Critics suggest that ending the agreement could fracture industry unity and create uncertainty. How do you respond to concerns that FTE's position could isolate domestic growers from other key players in the supply chain?
Guenther: The rule of law is what creates certainty. Failure to enforce U.S. unfair trade laws in the face of repeated U.S. government findings that Mexican tomatoes are being dumped and injuring American tomato producers is what is creating uncertainty. Termination of the 2019 Suspension Agreement will not prevent Mexican tomato producers from exporting to the U.S.; all they must do is price their tomatoes fairly as required by U.S. law. The collapse of American tomato producers will not benefit retailers or foodservice, because if the American supply collapses, we all become dependent on one foreign source. True supply chain stability comes from maintaining multiple suppliers, including a strong domestic industry. That's what we're trying to achieve.
Q: A recent Arizona State University study claims consumer tomato prices could rise by nearly 50% if the agreement ends. Do you think those warnings are overstated?
Guenther: Not only was it overstated, but based on a completely false premise. The Arizona State University study based that presumption on a complete removal of Mexican tomatoes from the U.S. market. Antidumping orders do not require that; they merely require that Mexican exporters sell their tomatoes in the U.S. at fair, non-dumped prices in compliance with U.S. law recognized by Mexico in both the USMCA and WTO. That projection is also not supported by historical data. When the previous suspension agreement was suspended from May to September 2019, import data reported by the U.S. International Trade Commission demonstrated that Mexican imports stayed largely stable, dropping by less than 6%; and retail prices didn't spike. That's based on USDA and Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The market adjusted just fine. These scare tactics around pricing ignore that the real threat to consumers is losing the U.S. supply altogether.
Q: Some have framed the Commerce Department's action as a political maneuver. How do you respond to that?
Guenther: That's simply not true. Mexican tomato exporters and importers had their day in court — and lost. They lost at the Commerce Department, they lost unanimously at the U.S. International Trade Commission, and they lost at the U.S. Court of International Trade. This is a legal enforcement action that's nearly 30 years overdue. The evidence of dumping and injury is overwhelming, and the agencies responsible have followed the law. Mislabeling this as political ignores the facts and undermines the credibility of the U.S. legal process. Enforcing trade laws isn't radical, it's responsible. It's what every country has the right to do when its industries are harmed by unfair trade practices — Mexico agreed to this in the USMCA.
Q: Supporters of the agreement argue it prevents trade wars and keeps imports affordable. Why do you think duties or trade litigation are better paths forward?
Guenther: Let's get the record straight. It is the Mexican tomato industry that is waging a trade war on American tomato producers through its use of the unfair trade practice of dumping to destroy the U.S. industry. The Mexican tomato industry has been found guilty of violating the U.S. antidumping law by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission; and the U.S. Court of International Trade recently confirmed dumping by Mexican tomato exporters. The purpose of the U.S. antidumping law is to shield American industries and workers from unfair trade practices, not to shield foreign exporters using unfair trade practices. The American tomato industry accepted five suspension agreements in good faith and was rewarded by the Mexican industry continuing to wage war on it. All five suspension agreements have failed to stop the Mexican trade war. After five failures, the path forward to stopping the trade war is strong enforcement of U.S. unfair trade laws — termination of the current suspension agreement and imposition of antidumping duties as required by U.S. law.
Q: The article in the Washington Post suggested U.S. tomatoes can't compete on quality. What's your response to that claim?
Guenther: It's a misleading argument not supported by the facts. The U.S. International Trade Commission's 2019 comprehensive investigation found that U.S. and Mexican tomatoes are “highly substitutable,” and comparable on 20 out of 22 purchasing factors — flavor, freshness, color, texture, you name it. Both industries offer a wide range of high-quality products that consumers use interchangeably. End of story.
Q: Industry groups say the agreement promotes fair trade and prevents market disruptions. What would a fairer system look like in your view?
Guenther: It is not fair trade when the Mexican tomato industry continues to export dumped tomatoes to the U.S., which continue to injure the American industry in violation of U.S. law. In December 2024, the Commerce Department determined that “dumping continued at a level above de minimis since the signing of the 2019 suspension agreement.” In April of this year, the U.S. Court of International Trade affirmed the Commerce Department's determination that imported Mexican tomatoes are being dumped. Given the failure of all five suspension agreements over almost 30 years to shield American tomato producers from unfair Mexican trade practices, a fair system would be strong enforcement of the U.S. antidumping law. Termination of the current suspension agreement and imposition of antidumping duties as required by U.S. law is the fair system. In fact, the USMCA recognizes the right of the United States and Mexico to enforce their unfair trade laws
Q: Are you advocating for total termination of the agreement with no replacement, or are you open to renegotiation?
Guenther: We are advocating for termination and the imposition of antidumping duties as required by U.S. law. We've seen multiple versions of suspension agreements over the last 30 years, and every one of them has failed to shield American growers from injurious, unfair Mexican trade practices. Renegotiation has been tried five times and hasn't worked. That's the only way to ensure long-term stability and fairness in the marketplace is strong enforcement of U.S. unfair trade laws.
Q: If the agreement is terminated and duties are imposed, what would success look like for U.S. tomato producers in the short and long term?
Guenther: In the short term, we'd expect market conditions to normalize, giving American producers a chance to compete fairly. Long-term success means a revitalized domestic industry that can invest, innovate and grow without the constant threat of unfair import pricing. This isn't about special treatment. It's about giving U.S. growers the opportunity to survive in their own market.
Q: And what happens if the Commerce Department doesn't terminate the agreement?
Guenther: We'll continue to pursue every legal and policy avenue to hold Mexican tomato exporters accountable for their unfair trade practices in violation of U.S. law. The fight for fair trade doesn't stop here. American agriculture depends on the rule of law, and we will keep working to ensure the rules are followed.