Imagine being a policy maker in U.S. agriculture right now, trying to scope out an agenda that meets your members’ needs, rather than pander to President Donald Trump’s protectionist agenda. Maybe your interests and his merge at some point. But if they’re at odds, you’re on shaky ground.

That’s the dilemma facing groups such as the International Fresh Produce Association (IFPA). It touts itself as “the largest and most diverse international association serving the entire fresh produce and floral supply chain, and the only association to seamlessly integrate world-facing advocacy and industry-facing support.”

With that kind of responsibility, it can’t wait for the changing political landscape and its implications for policy to be clearer.

This spring, the association released its 2025 fresh produce and floral public policy agenda, subtitled Charting the Course for Advocacy. It says this agenda is consistent with its commitment to foster industry growth, innovation and long-term success. These days, the strategic importance of advocacy can’t be stressed enough. Theoretically, U.S. growers should prosper under a wellness agenda like the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement. But without advocacy for sound policy, that likelihood is a crap shoot.

The association has created an agenda that it says builds on past achievements and builds a stronger future. What that actually looks like is a document that touches on topics that will be familiar to growers on both sides of the border: labour, trade, nutrition and consumption, crop protection and production technology, food safety, supply chain resiliency, sustainability, taxes and the multi-billion-dollar Farm Bill. The latter doesn’t have a Canadian equivalent, but if and when its latest incarnation is passed, it will have a huge impact on North America’s agri-food industry.

The big question is that out of all these imperatives, how to you rank priorities? 

For the association, labour comes first. It claims to be “leading the charge” for H-2A visa program reform, to make it more affordable and accessible for all of its member growers seeking to use the program. This includes expanding the program to meet the needs of producers regardless of the seasonality of their production. It also wants to remove what it calls arbitrary caps on the H-2B visa program, to ensure access to non-skilled, non-agricultural workers vital to all parts of the fresh produce and floral supply chains.

Trade is priority number two. This is where the association bumps up against anything that impedes exports. For example, it acknowledges that Trump’s beloved tariffs can be a negotiating tool. However, it notes, the industry has experienced tariffs’ broad application disrupting supply chains, threatening market expansion, increasing consumer costs and placing unnecessary strain on growers and producers.

As well, the association is standing up for science. 

“IFPA believes that governments around the world should review trade restrictions to ensure adherence to risk-based scientific principles and to create more fair-trading relationships,” it says. “Fresh produce, specialty crops and florals are robustly traded across the North American market. Growing seasons and regions mean that a North American market serves U.S. consumers, and American consumers demand year-round access to a robust variety of fresh produce.”

The association will have its hands full. MAHA’s interpretation of “healthy” is riddled with questionable science and political bias, particularly against modern production and crop protection products. MAHA claims some such products are poisoning America. Conversely, the association says access to biotechnology and well-regulated pesticides ensure the viability of modern agricultural production and a safe, reliable food supply.

Can America have it both ways? The association has taken positions that don’t reflect the government’s approach on key points. Perhaps they’ll meet in the middle. But more likely, something will have to give.