The Debate Goes On Over the Arrangement Used to Market Citrus in the Golden State
Editor’s Note: The California & Co. column, “Citrus Cartel Would Make OPEC Jealous” (Jan. 8), generated considerable reader response, particularly from smaller growers. Nearly all were critical of the current marketing system. A representative sampling follows.
A slanted story like this crops up every five years or so. I am a third-generation orange grower on both sides of my family. Both of my grandfathers helped form Sunkist, so I am admittedly biased.
The co-op system is supported by most of the growers, and all have the option of voting on the marketing agreement at regular intervals. Those against it are few and usually are growers who see opportunities not generally available to the others, so, of course, they are against it.
All citrus is graded for its best use. Navel orange juice is extremely bitter to most tastes and needs to be mixed with Valencia juice to make it palatable. For this reason, few navel oranges are used for juice. No citrus fruits are ever left to rot in the packing houses by design. Citrus does rot, just as any fruit or vegetable, but in the retail, not wholesale, environment.
Akst says the system promotes overproduction. How does he explain the fact that for more than 40 years citrus acreage has declined significantly? How can you increase production without increasing acreage?
Because of my family’s long involvement in the industry, I can tell you about the profitability of citrus, from before the turn of the century to now. The lack of profit is one of the reasons for the decline of citrus acreage. Compare the citrus price per pound to any other vegetable or fruit in the market.
Paying an agricultural rate for water is a government subsidy. But people forget that water prices paid by farmers helped pay for the California aqueduct system. It is also subsidizing the price of most fruits and vegetables grown in California. Would Akst believe that prices for these do not reflect the cost of water, the farmer’s No. 1 expense?
Akst mentions Carl Pescosolido, a grower who owns a large acreage of navel oranges and is very successful. He believes that he can market his navel oranges more profitably than he is allowed to by the marketing order, and there is no question that he can. However, if his volume of oranges were allowed to go on the market as he would like, it would depress the market for growers who pick their fruit later in the season, after Pescosolido’s crop is picked.
Would Akst believe that this Harvard-trained economist would want to sell his fruit at a lower price as mandated by the marketing agreement? I think not and I don’t blame him--but majority still rules.
HAMILTON TEMPLE III
Fallbrook