Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current, March 24, 2017, Image 12

Historic Oregon Newspapers

Capital press., March 24, 2017, Page 12, Image 12

Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR

About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (March 24, 2017)

Prev Page of 28 Next Prev Issue Next Text PDF JP2 (1.4 MB) Clip/Print Image

Return to Top

Prev Page of 28 Next Prev Issue Next

Newspaper Page Text12 CapitalPress.com March 24, 2017 China exempt from Russian embargo banning Western produce CHINA from Page 1 “They have a lot of ap- ples. They doubled exports to Southeast Asia in one year. Their quality has been im- proving. We don’t know how much quality they have or will want to ship a long distance and take more risk with,” he said. He points to several pos- sible reasons Chinese apple exports to the U.S. increased so much in one year. One reason might be that it took China time to meet U.S. phytosanitary requirements. Another is that China is trying to offset its slowing economy. Years ago, China pushed exports of numerous goods but then backed off after Eu- rope, Japan and the U.S. ob- jected to their markets being ﬂ ooded, O’Rourke said. China concentrated on building its domestic market and put less focus on exports for awhile, but with its econ- omy slowing it has in the past year begun pushing exports again, he said. The export effort involves manufactured and other goods. With fruit, China is selling heavily into Asia, Russia and the Middle East, O’Rourke said. China is exempt from the Russian embargo that bans Western produce, and South- east Asia and India are close to home. China is also im- proving the quality of its ex- port Fuji and is selling in the same price range in the U.S. as domestic apples, he said. Chinese pear sales grow slowly in U.S. By DAN WHEAT Capital Press Courtesy of Steve Yeoh Steve Yeoh, a Southern California fruit exporter and importer, with naval oranges he exports. He says Chinese apples will remain niche items in the U.S. U.S. apple imports, 2016 (Packed 40-pound boxes — Total: 10.65 million boxes) China: 192,258 or 1.8% Argentina: 602,399 or 5.7% Largest producer China grows 43.8 million metric tons — the equiva- lent of 24.1 billion 40-pound boxes — of apples annually, most of which are consumed domestically. That’s half the world’s apple production. By comparison, the U.S. produces 4.6 million metric tons of apples — the equiva- lent of 253 million 40-pound boxes — leaving it a distant second place in world pro- duction. In 2016, China export- ed 114,620 metric tons of apples to Russia, up from 85,660 metric tons in 2015, O’Rourke said. In Southeast Asia, Chi- nese apple sales increased from 393,999 to 615,392 metric tons, and in India and Bangladesh sales increased from 202,953 to 406,801 metric tons. “It’s the markets nearer to them. Their cheaper apples are going into those plac- es. Their better apples go to Canada and the U.S.,” O’Ro- urke said. China leap-frogged from total apple exports of 800,000 metric tons in 2015 to 1.5 million metric tons in 2106, said Todd Fryhover, president of the Washington Apple Commission. “They are pushing every- where,” he said. “I’m surprised at the vol- ume (of U.S. uptick), that there’s demand for them. None of our (Washington) shippers are bringing them in that I’ve heard of,” said Tom Riggan, general man- ager of Chelan Fresh Mar- keting. “None of our customers have asked if we have Chi- *Includes Mexico, France, S. Korea, Italy, Peru, S. Africa and Turkey. NOTE: Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding. Other*: 78,573 or 0.7% Canada: 1.36 million or 12.8% Chile: 5.76 million 40-lb. boxes or 54.1% New Zealand: 2.65 million or 24.9% Source: USDA FAS Dan Wheat and Alan Kenaga/Capital Press nese product. I’ve seen more and more Ya pears come in from China in Los Angeles markets, but not Chinese Fuji,” he said. Riggan said he’s eaten Chinese Fuji in China, In- dia and Germany and that it doesn’t have the sugar level and dessert quality of Wash- ington-grown Fuji. Niche U.S. market Steve Yeoh, export direc- tor and co-owner of Agri-Pa- cific International Trading Corp. in Arcadia, Calif., has been importing and export- ing fruit in Southern Califor- nia for 25 years. He mostly exports citrus fruit, apples and table grapes. Importers who buy Chi- nese Fuji sell them to Asian markets in Chinatowns in major cities such as Los An- geles, San Francisco, Seat- tle, Chicago and New York, said Yeoh, who is Chinese. Premium Chinese Fuji look better than U.S. Fuji be- cause they are grown in bags to give them better color and clean skin with no scratches or blemishes, he said. But he’s never thought they would become big in the U.S. because they lack consistent quality and China doesn’t have the facilities to pack and grade apples like U.S. packers do, he said. “Chinese Fuji target Chi- natowns. I don’t think it will grow a lot more. Fuji is becoming a lesser variety because Americans are go- ing for newer club varieties like Envy and Pacific Rose,” Yeoh said. Price is key, he said. Chinese Fuji sell into the U.S. at an average of $26 per 40-pound box, which is similar to U.S. apple domes- tic prices, “so they are not undercutting us,” O’Rourke said. Price undercutting was a fear that for years caused the U.S. apple industry to op- pose Chinese imports. Past problems In 1998, China caused se- vere damage to the U.S. ap- ple juice industry by flood- ing the world market with cheap, government-subsi- dized apple juice. After that, apple produc- ers in Washington, New York and Michigan feared boat- loads of Chinese Fuji apples arriving on U.S. shores and taking a big bite out of the fresh apple market. The U.S. industry used pest and disease protocols as roadblocks to China’s re- quest, also in 1998, for its fresh apples to be allowed in. But in the late 1990s and Besides apples, Paciﬁ c Northwest growers also export pears and sweet cherries to China. China produced 250,000 metric tons of sweet cherries in 2015, ranking third in the world behind the U.S., at 307,000 metric tons, and Turkey, at 535,600 metric tons. “They grow a lot of cherries but their qual- ity isn’t good enough to export much beyond neighboring markets,” said Desmond O’Ro- urke, a retired Washington State University ag- ricultural economist and China observer. China has been taking increasing amounts of PNW cherries, but China’s production is increasing rapidly, said O’Rourke, who wor- ries more Chinese production could impact the amount of U.S. cherries that nation imports. China imported 1.5 million, 20-pound box- es of PNW cherries in 2016. Including Hong Kong, exports exceeded 2 million boxes, and the outlook is nothing but positive for 2017, said B.J. Thurlby, president of Northwest Cherry Growers in Yakima, Wash. Keith Hu, international program director of Northwest Cherry Growers, was in China the past two weeks and saw “no indication the government is considering any type of action,” Thurlby said. Chinese cherries ripen a month ahead of PNW cherries, and there’s plenty of room to increase PNW cherry exports there, he said. China won access to the U.S. for its Ya pears in 1997. Imports were halted in 2001- 2002 when a large percentage were found to be infected with a fungal disease. They were again banned in 2003 when USDA Agricultur- al Research Service pathologist Rodney Rob- erts found infected Ya pears in a Wenatchee, Wash., grocery store. The market was re- opened in 2005. Steve Yeoh, export director and co-owner of Agri-Paciﬁ c International Trading Corp. in Arcadia, Calif., imported about 20, 40-foot ocean containers of Ya pears for a couple of years but got caught the second year in the quarantine. He had to send pears back to Chi- na and hasn’t imported them since. “We sold them to Chinese markets here (Los Angeles) and the East Coast. Ya means duck. It’s one of China’s oldest pears. It’s early 2000s, with the Wash- ington apple industry hurt- ing from low prices and not enough varietal diversifica- tion, the appeal of China’s large population as a poten- tial market began to grow. Red and Golden Deli- cious apples from Wash- ington, Oregon and Idaho were allowed into China in 1993 but were banned from August 2012 to Novem- ber 2014, after disease was found in some shipments. When shipments resumed they were immediately hin- dered by work slowdowns at West Coast ports. In the meantime, Wash- ington producers increasing- ly wanted access to China for all apple varieties and, as a tradeoff, began thinking of ending their opposition to Chinese apples coming into the U.S. The Washington Apple Commission hired O’Rourke to evaluate the potential im- pact of Chinese apples com- ing into the U.S. O’Rourke concluded that the perceived threat of Chinese apples flooding U.S. markets was overblown. China only grew Fuji, which was less than 10 percent of the U.S. market, and the quality was inferior, he said. “We looked at Canada, where China made a big surge (in 2003 and 2004) something Chinese here are familiar with. It’s nostalgic but sometimes they are inconsistent in sugar and quality,” he said. Chinese Sand pears and Fragrant pears were allowed into the U.S. in 2013, when U.S. pears were allowed into China. A small but growing number of Chinese pears are coming into the U.S. while U.S. pear exports to China are struggling, said Jeff Correa, international marketing director of The Pear Bureau Northwest in Portland. He doesn’t foresee Chinese pears grow- ing much beyond Chinese markets because most Americans prefer the Bartlett and d’An- jou varieties grown in the U.S. and Southern Hemisphere, and consumers worry that food grown in China isn’t as safe as that grown in the U.S. “I think they have a ceiling within their niche. It’s the same issue we encounter over there,” he said. “Chinese pears are different from our vari- eties,” Correa said. “They taste more like ap- ples, are crunchier, and some of them are very juicy.” They can be eaten like apples without waiting for them to ripen or soften, he said, noting the biggest challenge for U.S. pears in China is getting consumers to wait for them to ripen. The U.S. imports about the same amount of pears as it exports, roughly 4 million, 44-pound boxes, Correa said. The vast majority of the imports come from Argentina and Chile. The U.S. imported 625,400, 44-pound boxes of pears from China in 2016, up from 529,150 in 2015 and 413,850 in 2014. The PNW crop averages 20 million boxes annually, which is 85 percent of the U.S. crop. China is the world’s largest producer of pears. In 2015, the PNW exported 126,450 box- es of pears to China, down from 204,300 in 2014. Sales of the 2016 crop through Decem- ber to China were 46,650 boxes compared with 100,150 boxes at the same point a year earlier. “It’s dropping. Hopefully, it’s not a continu- ing trend but maybe an overcorrection of how much the market wants,” Correa said. The same factors that impact U.S. apple exports to China — pricing, the strong dollar and increased competition from Europe — are hindering U.S. pears, he said. that fizzled, and the same in Europe. China’s natural export markets are in those big Asia markets closer to home,” O’Rourke said. O’Rourke remembers some big shippers muttering their disagreement when he presented his study to the Apple Commission. Two large shippers were opposed but most of the opposition came from East Coast growers hit hard by the juice competition, Fry- hover said. Industry uniﬁ es It took several years to get the industry unified to end its opposition to Chinese imports and more time for U.S.-Chinese negotiations, in which the Northwest Hor- ticultural Council in Yakima played a big role, Fryhover said. The Apple Commission passed a motion Dec. 5, 2012, recommending Chi- nese apple access to the U.S. in exchange for full varietal U.S. access to China. Pest and disease concerns were addressed. The two governments reached an agreement in ear- ly 2015 and later that year all apple varieties were allowed to ﬂ ow both directions for the ﬁ rst time. In the 2014-2015 sales season, Washington shipped 1.35 million boxes of apples to China. That dropped to 1.27 million in 2015-2016. The drop was caused by a variety of factors, according to an assessment by the Ap- ple Commission released at its March 14 meeting. They included overproduction and a drop in prices in China, more shipments into China from Chile and New Zealand, a slowdown of China’s econ- omy, a strong U.S. dollar and high Washington prices due to a smaller 2015 crop, China’s middle and upper class population increased from 30 million in 2011 to 109 million in 2015 and is expected to grow 25 to 30 percent in each of the next ﬁ ve years, the assessment states. That middle-income pop- ulation growth, its increas- ing online purchasing, its concern for food safety and Washington’s high quality all bode well for future exports to China, the commission said in the assessment. When the Chinese econ- omy rebounds, the commis- sion concluded, that growing middle-income class will be “willing to try new varieties and with the increased num- ber of new apples that Wash- ington apple growers contin- ue to offer, we can expect an increase in demand of Wash- ington apples as a whole.” ‘It’s not a science-based ‘I urge you to please not take my options away’ number. It’s a social call’ GMO from Page 1 WOLF from Page 1 would include probable attacks that ﬁ t in a pattern with at least one con- ﬁ rmed case. The department did not make a recommendation on whether the threshold for lethal removal should remain at four depredations. Martorello said WDFW would someday like the ﬂ exibility to inter- vene whenever it believes shooting wolves can change pack behavior, ultimately reducing the number of livestock and wolves killed. The department, however, rec- ognizes the public wants certainty and a way to hold WDFW account- able, he said. The advisory group will have to set the threshold, Martorello said. “It’s not a science-based number. It’s a social call,” he said. If WDFW had counted con- ﬁ rmed and probable depredations last summer in the Colville National Forest, the department would have considered shooting wolves in the Profanity Peak pack a week after the ﬁ rst conﬁ rmed depredation. Instead, the department started hunting for the pack nearly three weeks later, after the fourth con- ﬁ rmed depredation. WDFW eventually shot seven wolves. A study funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and pub- lished in 2015 concluded that partial pack removal was effective in Mon- tana, Idaho and Wyoming if done soon after a depredation. Partial pack removal worked best if conducted within seven days of a depredation. If wildlife man- agers waited 14 days, there was no difference between partial pack re- moval and doing nothing, according to the study. which doesn’t involve transferring DNA from one organism to another but could nonetheless be restricted under HB 2469, he said. Opponents of HB 2469 argue the possibility of local restrictions on genetically engineered crops will create uncertainty for farmers, par- ticularly if they cultivate crops in multiple jurisdictions. Tim Winn, who produces bio- tech sugar beets in Benton County, said proponents of GMO bans see farmers like him as “necessary col- lateral damage.” “I urge you to please not take my options away,” he said. Supporters of the bill claim that local governments should again be permitted to set their own rules because the state government has taken no action on GMOs since the 2013 pre-emption policy was ap- proved. “We were led to believe cross-contamination would some- how be addressed through the De- partment of Agriculture,” said Rep. Paul Holvey, D-Eugene, who spon- sored HB 2469. The USDA has acknowledged that damages from GMO contami- nation occur but claims it lacks the authority to prevent such problems, said Amy van Saun, a legal fellow at the Center for Food Safety, a non- proﬁ t that supports greater biotech regulation. It would be great if the state gov- ernment tackled the problem, but it’s shown no such intention, she said. “It’s not coexistence when only one side bears the burden and the costs,” van Saun said. Growers of conventional and or- ganic seed would be unreasonable to ignore the potential legal liability of selling crops contaminated with pat- ented biotech traits, said Elise Hig- ley, director of Our Family Farms Coalition, which supports HB 2469. Contaminated seed would also be rejected by buyers who want a GMO-free product, ultimately mak- ing it more expensive as it becomes more rare, she said. “GE farmers end up winning by default and our traditional seed sup- ply diminishes,” Higley said. Proponents of HB 2469 also discounted arguments against local GMO ordinances, such as the pos- sible confusion from various coun- ty-by-county rules. “So what if there’s a patchwork? There are all kinds of patchworks with different policies and they’re working just ﬁ ne,” Higley said. Counties that have enacted GMO bans also haven’t been saddled with additional costs, as predicted by opponents, said Barbara Richard, a Rogue Valley resident. “None of them have encountered any enforcement issues. They’re self-enforcing,” she said.