North America’s fresh produce trade was built on speed, trust and predictability. In a previous Vision Magazine analysis, I explored the region’s transition to neighborshoring: an integrated, trust-based regional partnership rooted in technology and shared purpose. That shift is real, and it’s not going away. Still, before it fully takes shape, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) review set for July 1, 2026, becomes an important checkpoint. For the fresh produce sector, the review isn’t about rewriting the trade playbook. It’s about clarifying and reinforcing the path ahead.
A Review, Not a Reset
The USMCA review is often misunderstood. It isn’t a renegotiation or a chance to reopen the entire agreement. It’s a scheduled evaluation, a moment for all three countries to look at what’s working, what isn’t, and what may need attention as supply chains evolve. Under Article 34.7, the three governments must jointly evaluate effectiveness and decide whether to extend the USMCA for an additional 16 years.
If all three countries agree, the deal simply rolls forward to 2042. If they don’t, it shifts into yearly checkups and could wind down by 2036. It’s meant to be a structured evaluation, not a full do-over. But in today’s political environment, the line between reviewing how the agreement works and trying to change its terms has become harder to distinguish.
As the formal review draws closer, it’s clear the process will command plenty of attention. The March 18 launch between the U.S. and Mexico, without Canada at the table, was narrow in scope and came less than four months before the statutory review date. On top of that, the U.S. Trade Representative has already signaled that the administration won’t support a routine renewal unless structural gaps are addressed. For the fresh produce sector, that position points to important implications ahead.
What Is Actually at Stake for the Industry
Since USMCA replaced NAFTA in 2020, fresh U.S. fruit exports have grown by 34%, and vegetable exports by 14%. In 2024, the trade in fresh produce among the three countries reached $35 billion. The integrated supply chain provides the predictability, speed, and market access that underpin North America’s produce trade. The review may disrupt these advantages. Three specific areas deserve the industry’s close attention:
One is seasonal produce disputes and competition dynamics. The tomato case stands out: in July 2025, the U.S. ended a three-decade suspension agreement with Mexico and imposed a 17.1% antidumping duty. Renegotiated repeatedly since 1996, the dispute shows how U.S. market dynamics can trigger trade actions that ripple through supply chains from Sinaloa to the ports of Texas and Arizona. Avocados are next; the California Avocado Commission requests stricter inspections and a quota. These considerations reflect a recurring pattern that the review could either escalate or resolve.
Another is the trilateral versus the bilateral question. The main risk is shifting from one trilateral framework to three bilateral agreements. For an industry built on continental supply chains, this shift brings real costs: duplicative compliance steps, inconsistent standards, and additional administrative work. The sector has long argued that trilateral coordination is what keeps things efficient. Moving away from it risks the opposite. The next few months will show whether that message resonates at the negotiating table.
The third area that stands out is sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures: the food safety and plant-health standards that form the invisible architecture of cross-border produce trade.
The three countries depend on digital certification platforms, the U.S. Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance and Tracking system (PCIT), Canada’s My CFIA portal, and Mexico’s foreign trade single window (VUCEM), yet each system still operates largely on its own, with limited ability to connect across borders. Even small documentation hiccups at the port can result in rejected shipments, broken contracts, and lost shelf life for perishables.
The review presents a meaningful opportunity to close these gaps and advance toward a fully integrated cross-border SPS framework. Whether that opportunity is ultimately taken remains uncertain, and the produce sector is working to ensure the issue receives consistent, substantive attention throughout the negotiations. As the president of the Canadian Produce Marketing Association put it recently, the sector’s primary goal is to ensure it does not become “collateral damage” in changes driven by demands from other industries.
This risk is real. Aggressive changes to rules of origin, new tariff quotas, or a move to bilateral deals affect every part of the fresh produce supply chain, from growers and exporters to logistics operators and retailers.
The sector’s advocacy is not only lobbying; it is also a food security argument. The integrated North American system delivers affordable, fresh produce year-round.
A Regulatory Layer that Industry Cannot Ignore
Alongside the USMCA review, a significant regulatory change is happening. The FDA Food Traceability Rule, covering cucumbers, peppers, tomatoes, greens, melons, and tropical fruits, was to take effect in January 2026. Congress delayed enforcement to July 2028, a 30-month extension. The rule and its direction remain unchanged.
The rule requires companies to maintain and share traceability data at every point in the supply chain and to provide it to the FDA within 24 hours upon request. In practice, that means documenting a product’s movement from its origin through to the final sale, capturing each handler, facility, and location along the way.
For cross-border operations, compliance challenges grow; the data chain must remain unbroken from field to retail, meaning all links, including those to Mexico and Canada, must be aligned. Companies that use this requirement to build robust systems will not only be compliant but also competitively positioned. Blockchain could very well be the best tool for guaranteeing the integrity of information.
What Industry Should Be Doing Now
The clearest way to view the USMCA review is this: the outcome may be uncertain, but the direction is already taking shape. Whether the agreement is renewed, revised, or pushed into annual cycles, the industry should expect tougher scrutiny, a shift in regulatory expectations, and steady geopolitical friction.
Preparing for that environment now offers far more resilience than waiting for a favorable outcome. It also means building redundancy into the supply chain so operations can absorb disruptions without triggering a cascade of delays.
Industry should stay engaged in policymaking. July 1 is not the end of the negotiations; most expect talks to continue. Industry input remains open, and the fresh produce sector has a strong case.
This means strengthening compliance frameworks before inspection protocols tighten further. It means investing in digital traceability infrastructure, not as a future obligation, but as a present competitive advantage. And it means enhancing coordination with customs brokers and logistics partners to reduce border-related variability.
The Test Ahead
I’ve written before that neighborshoring is more than logistics; it’s cultural. The 2026 USMCA review will put that culture to the test. It will show whether the three countries can manage domestic pressures without unraveling the integrated North American produce trade system.
The review itself isn’t the defining factor. What matters is whether stakeholders use this window to build resilience, modernize systems, and protect the strengths already in place.
- Federico Schaffler holds a PhD in Public Policy and serves as Foreign Trade Administrator for Foreign Trade Zone #94 in Laredo, Texas. The views expressed are personal and do not represent the official position of the City of Laredo.