United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Economic

Research

Service

Economic

Research

Report

Number 142

November 2012

Specialty Crop Access to 

U.S. Markets: A Case Study

of Indian Mangoes

Peyton Ferrier

Everett Petersen

Maurice Landes
www.ers.usda.gov

Visit Our Website To Learn More!

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and, where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental 

status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, 

or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public 

assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons 

with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or 

call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

Cover photo credit: Shutterstock (top), Marvin Gapultos (bottom left), 

and Cinnamon Cooper (bottom right)

 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/internationalmarkets-trade/global-food-markets.aspx

Find additional information at

Use of commercial and trade names does not imply approval or 

constitute endorsement by USDA.

Recommended citation format for this publication:

Ferrier, Peyton, Everett Petersen, and Maurice Landes. Specialty Crop Access 

to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes, ERR-142, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, November 2012.
United States

Department

of Agriculture

www.ers.usda.gov

A Report from the Economic Research Service

Abstract

Certain specialty crops produced in other countries have gained better access to U.S. 

markets since 2007, when USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service changed 

its regulatory protocols for phytosanitary (plant health) concerns. One treatment option 

allowed under the 2007 protocols is irradiation. Using the example of U.S. imports of 

Indian mangoes, we examine the role of irradiation in mitigating pest risks from imported 

fresh produce, the costs associated with treating, shipping, and marketing fresh produce 

imports in the U.S. market, and the resulting increased availability and lower costs of 

Indian mangoes for U.S. consumers.

Keywords: India, mango, import access, irradiation, phytosanitary treatments

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the contributions of Megan Romberg, who was a fellow at the 

American Association for the Advancement of Science while at the USDA, 

Economic Research Service. 

Peyton Ferrier

Everett Petersen

Maurice Landes

Specialty Crop Access to 

U.S. Markets: A Case Study

of Indian Mangoes

Economic

Research 

Report

Number 142

November 2012
ii

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

U.S. Imports of Fresh Produce and Sanitary/

Phytosanitary Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

The Case Study of Indian Mangoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The U.S. Market for Fresh Mangoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The Indian Mango Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The Cost Buildup for Indian Mangoes Supplied 

to the U.S. Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Analytical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Consumer Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Exporter Supply and Price Linkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Model Data and Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Estimated Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Model Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Consumer Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Welfare Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
iii

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

Summary

What Is the Issue?

Certain specialty crops produced in other countries, such as Indian mangoes, 

have gained greater access to U.S. markets since 2007, when USDA’s 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service changed its regulatory protocols 

for ensuring goods are free of pests. One treatment option considered under 

the 2007 protocols as an effective quarantine measure for neutralizing nearly 

all insect pests is irradiation. Using the example of U.S. imports of Indian 

mangoes, we examine the role of irradiation in mitigating pest risks from 

imported fresh produce; the costs associated with treating, shipping, and 

marketing fresh produce imports in the U.S. market; and the resulting levels 

of prices and availability of Indian mangoes for U.S. consumers. (For more 

information on 2007 regulatory changes, see: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/

import_export/plants/plant_imports/index.shtml.)

What Did the Study Find?

Increased access of foreign fresh produce to the U.S. market, facilitated 

by risk-mitigation options such as irradiation, can improve U.S. consumer 

welfare. While increased variety and availability of goods are likely to 

benefit consumers, the size of these benefits depends on whether these goods 

are able to capture a substantial market share. In the case of U.S. imports of 

Indian mangoes, India’s share of the U.S. market remains small and dependent on the apparent willingness of some consumers to pay high prices for 

India’s mango varieties relative to competing varieties from larger exporters, 

such as Mexico. Our findings indicate that these high prices arise primarily 

from transportation costs and high wholesale margins and not from the regulatory or treatment costs.

•	Irradiation, a postharvest treatment that neutralizes a wide range of pests,

can facilitate access to the U.S. market for fresh produce that may not 

be able to meet U.S. regulatory requirements by other means. The costs 

of irradiation are likely to fall if the treatment becomes more commonly 

used.

•	Irradiation and other regulatory compliance costs appear to be low relative to other logistical and marketing costs for fresh produce accessing 

the U.S. market. Innovation and increased scale that reduce transportation 

costs and wholesale margins are likely to yield greater gains in imports 

and result in more imported produce being available to U.S. consumers 

than are reductions in irradiation costs. 

•	While the benefits to U.S. consumers of improved availability and

lower costs associated with an individual niche product, such as Indian 

mangoes, may be small, the cumulative gain to U.S. consumers from 

improved access to a broad range of specialty crops likely would be 

substantially greater.
iv

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

How Was the Study Conducted? 

This study uses a partial equilibrium model of the U.S. and Indian mango 

markets to estimate the value of increased imports of Indian mangoes arising 

from changes in costs associated with irradiation treatment, shipping, and 

wholesale margins. Demand is modeled using a constant elasticity of substitution utility framework, calibrated with trade and price data from USDA’s 

Foreign Agricultural Service and Agricultural Marketing Service, as well 

as from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis 

and Census Bureau. Costs are modeled using detailed wholesale and retail 

data provided by the Indian Ministry of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing 

Information Network (Agmarknet), as well as cost information obtained 

through interviews with Indian traders.
1

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

Introduction

U.S. demand for fresh fruits and vegetables is increasing and a growing share 

of U.S. fresh produce comes from developing countries. For these goods, 

both sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions and logistical factors may act as 

significant barriers to trade. In the case of phytosanitary restrictions, import 

access often depends on whether preharvest production practices and postharvest treatments can ensure that goods are pest-free. Since 2007, USDA has 

certified irradiation treatment as an effective quarantine measure for neutralizing nearly all insect pests. Irradiation, which often is the only postharvest 

treatment without substantial and difficult-to-verify changes to production 

and handling systems, may facilitate further growth in U.S. produce imports 

from developing countries.

After discussing the recent growth in U.S. fresh produce imports, this report 

examines the pest risks associated with their importation and how irradiation 

mitigates that risk. Using a case study of Indian mangoes, we first detail the 

cost structure of this high-cost commodity sold primarily in a niche market. 

For mangoes from India, transportation costs and wholesale margins within 

the supply chain are high, and the share of the U.S. wholesale cost attributable to these costs is far larger than the share attributable to irradiation. We 

quantify the economic benefits of regulatory and logistical changes that 

reduce the costs associated with importation, including those associated with 

irradiation for which USDA may have some measure of control. Our findings suggest that the resultant increases in imports of Indian mangoes are 

small relative to the broader mango market and that reductions in the costs 

of irradiation would generate only small welfare benefits for U.S. consumers. 

Reductions in wholesale margins and shipping costs, however, are shown to 

have a relatively large impact on imports and consumer welfare. 
2

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

U.S. Imports of Fresh Produce and Sanitary/

Phytosanitary Treatments

Fresh fruit and vegetable imports are growing. Between 2000 and 2008, the 

import value for edible fruits and vegetables grew more than 8 percent annually, and by 2008, these goods accounted for about 15 percent of U.S. agricultural imports (Economic Research Service, 2010). A large and increasing share 

of fruits and vegetables is being supplied by developing countries (table 1).

Developing countries that have not historically shipped goods to the United 

States must address potential pest problems before they can access the U.S. 

market. Often, these countries have unique pest species, different climates, 

and weaker institutional and enforcement capabilities to implement mitigation strategies.

Imported fruits and vegetables may carry invasive species that are not indigenous to the United States. While there is some uncertainty about the magnitude of the threats associated with a specific good or pest, the aggregate 

damage of invasive species is generally understood to be quite large (see box, 

“The Cost of Invasive Species”).

For this reason, in most cases, fresh fruit and vegetable imports are inspected 

for pests. Imports suspected of carrying pests must receive a risk-mitigating 

treatment. If a treatment is not feasible, the goods are either shipped to 

another country without a quarantine requirement, returned to their country 

of origin, or destroyed. Treatments that kill, physically remove, or render 

pests sterile include:

•	Mechanical treatments. Produce is shaken, washed, or run through chemical or hot water dips.

•	Temperature treatments. Produce is exposed to hot or cold temperatures.

Table 1

U.S. fresh fruit and vegetable imports from developed and developing economies

Average U.S. imports

Average shares of 

the U.S. market

Annual growth 

rates1

Million dollars Percent Percent

1990-

92

1999-

2001

2007-

09

1990-

92

1999-

2001

2007-

09

1992-

2001

2001-

09

Developing 

economies

Agricultural products 20,118 27,173 64,714 49 53 64 3.4 11.5

Fresh fruits 418 828 1,411 26 41 41 7.9 6.9

Fresh vegetables 77 158 277 10 13 15 8.3 7.2

Developed 

economies

Agricultural products 20,590 23,928 36,482 51 47 36 1.7 5.4

Fresh fruits 1,162 1,181 2,014 74 59 59 0.2 6.9

Fresh vegetables 726 1,016 1,619 90 87 85 3.8 6.0

1Growth rates are computed between 3-year averages, ending on the years indicated.

Source: USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service, 2010.
3

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

•	Fumigation. Produce is treated with a gas (typically methyl bromide) that

kills a broad spectrum of insects.

•	Irradiation. Produce is irradiated with radiant energy, which at certain

intensities disrupts cellular activity in insect pests, rendering them incapable of reproducing.

Each treatment has drawbacks. Mechanical treatments do not work on all 

pests. Fumigation harms some commodities and fails to kill pests that burrow 

into the fruit or vegetable. Additionally, the primary fumigant used—methyl 

bromide—is an ozone-depleting substance for which use is curtailed by the 

Montreal Protocol (Ferrier, 2010). When mechanical treatments or fumigation are impractical, irradiation can typically treat insect pests without 

affecting the quality of most commodities. As a single postharvest measure, 

irradiation does not require monitoring of multiple production, shipping, and 

handling practices, as might be required under a systems-approach protocol 

(Follett and Neven, 2005). Irradiation, however, is more expensive than other 

treatments, requires specialized packaging and labeling, and, like mechanical 

treatments, generally must be performed prior to shipping (see box, “The 

Logistics of Handling Irradiated Fruits and Vegetables”). Estimates suggest 

that an irradiation treatment of peaches, apples, plums, or cherries might cost 

two to three times that of fumigation, which costs around 1 cent per pound of 

product treated (Ferrier, 2010, Forsythe and Evangelou, 1994).

Like other treatments, irradiation affects the quality of certain commodities 

in varying degrees. Some foods lose firmness, some ripen quicker, and some 

may develop spots. Some byproducts may be released and vitamin C content 

may fall when the irradiation dose is high—effects comparable to cooking 

(Fan and Sokorai, 2008). The dose of irradiation needed for quarantine 

purposes is low, compared with other applications, such as neutralizing foodborne bacteria. For instance, neutralizing E. coli O157:H7 in spinach requires 

an irradiation dose exceeding 2,000 grays—the unit of measure for imparted 

The Cost of Invasive Species

The diverse effects of invasive species on agricultural production and the 

environment stymie attempts to estimate their aggregate costs. Invasive 

nonindigenous species can lower crop yields, damage recreation areas, 

threaten native species, spread disease, encourage wildfire, destroy timber 

and wildlife resources, or alter ecosystems. Studies by the Government 

Accountability Office (2003) and the Office of Technology Assessment 

(1993) estimate that economic loss due to foreign pests and diseases sum to 

billions of dollars annually and severely affect ecosystem services. Related 

work estimates that control costs rose twentyfold from $10.4 million to 

$232 million in the 1990s and that annual comprehensive prevention, 

control, and monitoring expenditures have increased to over $1 billion in 

recent years (Livingston and Osteen, 2008; Lynch and Lichtenberg, 2006). 

Costs associated with specific pests or commodities are easier to estimate, 

including Livingston’s estimates with the Mediterranean fruit fly (2007); 

Cook’s with grape pests (2007); Cook et al.’s with the varroa bee mite 

(2008); and Petersen and Orden’s with the avocado seed weevil (2008).
4

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

irradiation. Mitigating most insects1 requires a dose of only 400 grays. The 

400-grays level is considered a generic treatment for most insects regardless 

of their species. But some commodities carrying only specific chronic pests 

of quarantine concern, such as the Mediterranean fruit fly, can be treated 

effectively with lower levels of irradiation. 

In addition to pest mitigation, irradiation is used to improve food safety and 

prolong shelf life. But, despite widespread regulatory approval of irradiation, 

only a small portion of consumer goods are currently irradiated. This is most 

likely due to the process’ relatively high cost and negative consumer perceptions (Ferrier, 2010). Ferrier notes that only about a third of spices imported 

into the United States are irradiated; spices are not required to be labeled as 

irradiated if they are further processed (see box, “The Labeling of Irradiated 

Products”). Despite having longstanding regulatory approval and substantial 

private investment, irradiated goods represent less than 1 percent of meats or 

fish consumed in the United States.

Regulatory approval of irradiation as a quarantine treatment has been in place 

since 2001, when Hawaii was allowed to use irradiation on Hawaii-produced 

goods shipped to the mainland United States. Since 2006, the treatment has 

been used by international trade partners. Ferrier (2011) shows that irradiation is making small inroads to U.S. markets for tropical, specialty foods (i.e., 

guava, mango, longan, and dragon fruit (also known as pitahaya)) that have 

few domestic or other permitted sources. Often, these products are favored 

by ethnic communities who are willing to pay markups for their purchase 

(Roy, 2009). The irradiation treatment may become more common as: the 

1Excluding a specific order of moths 

and butterflies.

The Logistics of Handling Irradiated Fruits 

and Vegetables 

Unlike methyl bromide fumigation, irradiation requires specialized 

facilities, necessitates logistical changes and product labeling, and is 

highly regulated. The actual irradiation dose is generated in two ways; 

by electricity (X-ray or E-beam) or by radioactive material (cesium or 

cobalt). With either method, thick shielding walls confine the radiation to 

a designated area. Irradiating fruits, vegetables, or other products requires 

simply moving the products past the irradiation source by conveyor belt. 

To increase the dose, the time of exposure to the irradiation source is 

lengthened by slowing the conveyor belt. 

When plant tissue and packing boxes are irradiated, the exterior portions 

absorb a higher dose and the interior portions a lower dose. Currently, 

the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations forbid fruits and 

vegetables (with the exception of leafy greens) from receiving an 

absorbed dose of more than 1,000 grays. USDA’s Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service requires the boxes to be relatively small and 

irradiation of whole pallets is typically infeasible. Also, boxes must be 

unaffected by irradiation. Finally, because (sterile) irradiated insects are 

indistinguishable from untreated ones, boxes must be wrapped in plastic 

before shipping to prevent the re-entry of new pests during transit. 
5

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

import permit process is streamlined to allow irradiation’s use as a generic 

treatment for most insect pests; the treatment is approved in more applications; labeling regulations for irradiation use are changed; and alternative 

treatments, such as methyl bromide fumigation, become less available.

While fumigation and mechanical treatments remain available, however, irradiation likely will be used only in limited circumstances when market access 

is otherwise impossible. For instance, several species of fruit fly, including 

the Mediterranean fruit fly, are endemic to areas where melons and citrus are 

produced. While Spanish citrus can withstand extended cold treatment for the 

fruit fly, guava, mango, and papaya cannot. The high cost of building an irradiator for export solely for the U.S. market2 may only be justified if the U.S. 

market is underserved and has relatively high prices. Bananas, pineapples, 

and grapes offer slim profit margins and are likely to be poor candidates for 

irradiation. On the other hand, niche goods like mangoes and dragon fruit 

may earn high prices on the U.S. market that justify exporters’ expenses.

2Few countries, with the exception of 

New Zealand and Australia, also currently import irradiated goods though 

this situation may change if reciprocity 

agreements obligate exporting countries 

to allow irradiated imports as a condition to exporting them.

The Labeling of Irradiated Products 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires that irradiated goods 

bear the radura logo. Unprocessed foods, such as whole fruits, must retain 

this logo when displayed for sale. Processed foods, such as sauces or 

ingredients in cooked foods, do not require a label. For example, irradiated 

nutmeg does not require the radura label if used as an ingredient in eggnog. 

The same spice would require a label if sold alone on a supermarket shelf. 

About a third of spices consumed in the United States are irradiated.

Retailers generally wish to avoid having to put the radura logo on retail 

foods because the logo is perceived negatively by consumers. But when 

consumers believe irradiation improves food safety, Fox et al. (2002) 

show that consumers not only perceive the radura logo positively, but are 

willing to pay a premium for irradiated food. These consumers, however, 

remain sensitive to new, negative information on the effects of irradiation, 

regardless of source, scientific rigor, or veracity. Related research suggests 

that consumers may be as sensitive to information provided by activists as 

by scientific experts (Hayes et al., 2002). Still other research confirms the 

negative perception of irradiation among some consumers (Parkhurst et 

al., 2004). FDA is currently (as of September 2012) considering revising 

labeling regulation to allow for supplemental information to be added to 

the radura label and removing the requirement for spices to include the 

radura label (FDA, 2007). 
6

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

The Case Study of Indian Mangoes

The United States is the world’s largest market for imported fresh mangoes, 

a market that is served primarily by Mexico and an array of smaller Central 

and South America suppliers. India is the world’s largest mango producer, 

accounting for more than 40 percent of global output, and the world’s 

largest exporter, just ahead of Mexico. Indian mango exports to the United 

States were halted by USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) in the mid-1980s because of concerns about pesticide residues. 

Access was reopened in 2007 under a bilateral agreement that requires, 

among other things, irradiation of the mangoes under APHIS inspection to 

mitigate pest risk (Kavilanz, 2007). Exports resumed in 2007 and, through 

2009, India was the ninth-largest U.S. supplier (World Trade Atlas, 2011). 

However, relative to Indian domestic production, exports were negligible, 

at just 210 tons. Moreover, the 183,000 tons Mexico annually ships to the 

United States dwarfs India’s exports to the United States (U.S. Department of 

Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).

The potential pest risks of Indian mangoes are outlined in the 2006 APHIS 

qualitative pest risk assessment (PRA) (see box, “The Pest Risk Assessment 

for Indian Mangoes”). To mitigate these risks, Indian mangoes must undergo 

several treatments and inspections before they enter the United States, 

including: an irradiation treatment with a minimum absorbed dose of 400 

grays to treat insect pests; inspection and fungicidal treatments for fungal 

pests; and preclearance inspection within India for bacterial pests. 

The U.S. Market for Fresh Mangoes

Since 1998, the United States has reported no domestic mango production, 

so the market is supplied entirely by imports (table 2). Per-capita consumption increased from 1.49 pounds in 1998 to 2.10 pounds in 2007. But, except 

for 2005, per-capita consumption remained fairly constant between 2003 and 

2007, ranging between 2.01 and 2.10 pounds per year.

Mexico is the largest exporter of fresh mangoes to the United States, 

accounting for approximately 65 percent of all U.S. imports between 2008 

and 2010 (table 3). Brazil, Ecuador, and Peru each provided 8-10 percent 

The Pest Risk Assessment for Indian Mangoes 

When USDA/APHIS considered whether mangoes could be imported 

to the United States from India, it conducted a pest risk assessment 

that documented the risks posed by each potential pest and its potential 

mitigation mechanisms. Low-risk pests did not require specific mitigation 

measures, other than inspection. Medium- and high-risk pests required 

specific mitigation and treatment measures which, in this case, included 

irradiation. The high-risk pests included seven varieties of fruit flies and 

one scale insect, while the medium-risk pests included two mango weevils, 

one scale insect, and three bacterial or fungal pathogens. The low-risk 

pests and three of the medium-risk scale insects were deemed to have a 

low likelihood of introduction and establishment in the United States.
7

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 2

U.S. imports, exports, and consumption of mangoes 

Year Imports Exports Total

Consumption 

per capita

----------Million pounds---------- Pounds

1998 435 23 412 1.49

1999 483 30 453 1.62

2000 518 23 495 1.75

2001 525 15 510 1.79

2002 581 12 569 1.97

2003 614 14 599 2.06

2004 609 17 592 2.01

2005 575 18 557 1.88

2006 645 17 628 2.10

2007 651 16 635 2.11

2008 656 15 641 2.11

2009 634 13 621 2.02

2010 707 14 692 2.23

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, 2010.

Table 3

Mango production and trade data for major suppliers to the U.S. market 

Production Total exports

Exports/

production

Exports to 

U.S./exports Exports to U.S. 

Country 2008 2008 2009 2010

1,000 tons Percent 1,000 tons

Mexico 1,937 226 12 80 181.6 184.2 215.5

Ecuador 157 35 22 71 24.7 35.3 25.6

Peru 323 83 26 46 38.2 17.3 32.2

Brazil 1,155 134 12 19 25.7 23.2 24.4

Guatemala 111 20 18 73 14.9 14.7 12.7

Haiti 295 8 3 100 8.3 9.0 6.5

Nicaragua NA 4 NA 58 2.2 2.4 2.1

Costa Rica 50 9 18 14 1.2 0.9 1.1

India 13,649 275 2 0 0.3 0.2 0.3

Dominican Republic 170 5 3 4 0.2 0.2 0.2

Country total 17,847 798 4 37 297.3 287.3 320.5

World total 34,889 1,195 3 25 297.5 287.4 320.6

NA = Data not available.

Sources: United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization, FAOSTAT, 2008; Global Trade Information Services, 2009 and 2010.
8

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

of U.S. imports between 2008 and 2010, while Guatemala and Haiti each 

supplied 3-5 percent. Aside from these major suppliers, an array of smaller 

exporters, including Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and India, accounted for the 

remaining U.S. imports. Fresh mango imports and consumption show a 

distinct seasonal pattern, with peak monthly imports averaging about 38,000 

tons during April-July and about 14,000 tons during September-February.

U.S. mango prices vary significantly by origin and destination. USDA wholesale 

price data for fresh mangoes are summarized in table 4 (USDA, Agricultural 

Marketing Service, 2008).3 Fresh mangoes from Haiti generally have the highest 

wholesale price across regions, while mangoes from Guatemala generally have 

the lowest. These rankings are consistent with the rankings reflected in trade 

prices. The USDA wholesale price data include few observations for Indian 

mangoes, but the available data show that Indian mangoes sell at a substantial 

premium relative to mangoes from other countries.

The Indian Mango Market

India is the world’s largest producer and consumer of mangoes, now 

accounting for about 40 percent of global production and disappearance.4

Indian domestic production and consumption vary with annual growing 

conditions, but grew about 3 percent annually between 2000 and 2010 

(table 5). Mangoes are produced throughout the country, with States in all 

regions contributing significantly to total output. Throughout India, production is highly seasonal, with market arrivals beginning as early as March, 

peaking during May-June, and ending in August. More than 100 varieties are 

cultivated, with roughly 20 identified as being commercially significant by 

India’s National Horticulture Board. Prominent commercial varieties include 

Alphonso (Happus) and Kesar (or Keshar), both important export varieties due to their taste and shelf life, as well as varieties, such as Bangalora 

(Totapuri), Dashehari, and Langra, that are well known in India and have 

export potential. India is the world’s largest exporter of fresh mango products, exporting an average of about 420,000 tons of mango products annually 

during 2007-09, including about 73,000 tons of fresh and sliced mangoes 

and 347,000 tons of mango pulp. Exports of mango products have been 

growing along with production at about 3 percent annually, but account for 

3USDA provides mango price data 

for 14 U.S. markets: Atlanta, Baltimore, 

Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Los 

Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Seattle, 

and St. Louis.

4Disappearance data measure the 

quantity of farm produce that is removed (i.e., “disappears”) from farms 

and is destined for human consumption. 

Because some farm production is lost 

in waste and processing, disappearance 

data typically overstate consumption. If 

loss rates are stable, however, prices adjust accordingly so that disappearance 

data can be used in welfare analysis.

Table 4

U.S. wholesale prices of fresh mangoes, by supply region

Year Average 

Exporter 2004 2005 2006 2007 2006-07

Dollars per carton1

Brazil 6.77 6.94 7.97 7.94 7.96

Ecuador 6.12 5.59 6.85 6.89 6.87

Guatemala 5.81 5.33 5.39 5.57 5.49

Haiti 7.54 8.31 8.82 9.22 9.03

Mexico 4.90 5.95 5.88 5.97 5.92

Peru 5.73 5.31 5.65 7.65 6.68

1Prices are for 1-layer flats or cartons, the most common packing.

Source: USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, 2008.
9

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

only 3-4 percent of domestic supplies. Exports of fresh mangoes account for 

approximately 0.6 percent of India’s mango production. India’s major export 

markets for fresh mangoes are primarily in neighboring areas of South Asia, 

the Middle East, and Southeast Asia, but also include more distant markets, 

such as the United Kingdom5 and, more recently, the United States (table 6). 

Fresh mango exports to the United States averaged about 165 tons per year 

between 2007 and 2009, following the 2007 reopening of the U.S. market.6

India produces multiple commercial varieties of mangoes, with many varieties marketed primarily in the regions where they are grown. Data on the 

maximum wholesale price of the Alphonso and Kesar varieties suggest 

that the domestic markets for these two export varieties are not closely 

integrated and the simple correlation coefficient of the two varieties’ April 

through June prices in table 7 is just 25 percent. However, because the 

Alphonso variety has broad national consumer appeal in India and is the 

major variety produced and exported, we use this variety as our measure of 

wholesale costs. Because the United States imports only a small proportion 

of Indian production, and because irradiation capacity does not appear to be a 

constraint, we assume that the export supply of fresh mangoes from India to 

the United States is perfectly elastic.

The Cost Buildup for Indian Mangoes Supplied 

to the U.S. Market 

The benefit to both Indian producers and U.S. consumers from access to the 

U.S. market depends primarily on how effectively Indian mangoes compete 

with mangoes from other suppliers. The available information for the AprilJuly season during 2007-09, which is a mix of officially reported data and 

analyst judgment, indicates that Indian mangoes destined for the U.S. market 

incur significant costs between the farm gate and U.S. wholesale markets (table 

8). Within the Indian market, the producer price averages about 27 percent of 

the export price for Alphonso mangoes. Irradiation charges account for about 

20-40 percent of the difference between export and farm-gate prices, with the 

5Unlike the United States, the United 

Kingdom’s Department of Environment, 

Food, and Rural Affairs does not require 

extensive treatment of Indian mangoes, 

likely because the climate of the UK prevents the mango’s pests from becoming 

established. Subsequently, Indian mangoes have sometimes been transshipped 

between these countries to disguise their 

restricted origin (Ferrier, 2010)

6The calendar data reported by the 

World Trade Atlas for Indian exports 

of fresh mangoes to the United States 

indicate average shipments of 165 tons 

between 2007 and 2009, while U.S 

imports from India are reported to average 210 tons. The analysis of economic 

impacts is based on U.S. import data. 

Table 5

Supply and use of fresh mangoes in India 

Marketing 

year

Exports

Production Pulp Fresh Total Consumption

1,000 metric tons

2003/04 11,490 162 47 209 11,281

2004/05 11,830 188 53 241 11,589

2005/06 12,658 259 70 329 12,329

2006/07 13,734 309 80 389 13,345

2007/08 13,997 340 54 394 13,603

2008/09 12,750 367 81 448 12,302

2009/10 13,557 353 75 427 13,130

Source: Government of India, National Horticulture Board; Government of India, Ministry of 

Commerce and Industry, via World Trade Atlas.
10

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 6

Indian exports of fresh mangoes, by major destinations

Destination country 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Tons

Bangladesh 10,697 35,372 32,587 42,549 16,995 44,538 34,416 23,007 27,597

United Arab Emirates 19,041 8,571 26,704 23,304 22,367 23,338 25,164 28,624 21,917

Nepal 2,418 2,697 4,045 7,927 7,359 4,592 4,243 1,979 3,939

United Kingdom 1,486 1,124 698 2,154 2,531 2,471 2,929 2,841 2,523

Saudi Arabia 3,752 1,747 2,125 1,165 1,720 1,928 3,181 1,745 2,404

Bahrain 503 902 683 487 445 1,137 1,115 1,156 628

Kuwait 349 312 138 320 549 495 783 662 600

Malaysia 255 185 283 273 472 311 415 398 353

Singapore 238 150 249 231 341 290 371 394 584

Qatar 195 183 54 81 51 265 443 615 693

United States 4601 2071 731 12 136 203 156 119 390

World total 43,722 53,319 70,260 80,252 54,279 81,199 74,652 63,002 63,118

1Positive imports to the United States in 2006 may reflect transshipping, importation of processed mangoes, or inaccuracies in data reporting.

Source: Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, via World Trade Atlas.

Table 7

Monthly average maximum wholesale prices for Alphonso and Kesar 

variety mangoes in India

March April May June July

Rupees per kilogram1

Alphonso

2005 56 26 24 25 13

2006 55 37 31 18 --

2007 95 48 22 23 16

2008 99 54 51 22 --

2009 70 31 28 23 --

2010 76 65 43 33 30

Kesar

2005 30 25 13 10 5

2006 -- 16 11 11 --

2007 11 24 18 21 17

2008 -- 22 17 11 11

2009 18 18 27 28 --

2010 36 22 16 23 43

1During time period stated here, conversion rate: 1 U.S. dollar = 43.79 rupees.

-- = not quoted.

Source: Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Information 

Network (Agmarknet). 
11

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 8

India-U.S. trade price buildup for Alphonso mangoes

2007-09 (average)

Cost item Unit April May June July

A. In India

1. Farmgate price (unweighted Agmarknet prices)1 Rs/kg 44.20 33.72 22.68 10.91

2. Transport from farm to pack house2 Rs/kg 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

3. Pack house processing and fungicide2 Rs/kg 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

4. Transport to irradiation plant2 Rs/kg 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

5. Irradiation and handling3 Rs/kg 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00

6. APHIS inspection fees4 Rs/kg 34.07 34.07 34.07 34.07

7. Irradiation plant construction cost5 Rs/kg 5.14 5.14 5.14 5.14

8. Transport to Mumbai Airport6 Rs/kg 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

9. Airport clearing charges6 Rs/kg 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

10. Exporter margin (residual; A.11-(A.1:A.9)) Rs/kg 84.24 21.95 -25.49 -9.49

percent of farm-gate price Percent 190.6 65.1 -112.4 -87.0

11. Export price (C.1. - B.) Rs/kg 184.65 111.89 53.40 57.62

B. Air freight to United States7 Rs/kg 119.81 119.81 119.81 119.81

C. In United States

1. Import price (C.3 x C.2) Rs/kg 304.46 231.70 173.21 177.44

2. Exchange rate8 Rs/$ 43.99 43.71 43.68 43.82

3. Import price9 $/kg 6.92 5.30 3.97 4.05

4. Tariff $/kg 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07

5. Import price (C.3+C.4)/2.204622) $/lb 3.17 2.43 1.83 1.87

6. Airport clearance and handling $/lb NA NA NA NA

7. Transport and handling to wholesale $/lb NA NA NA NA

8. Importer costs and margins (residual; C.9-C.5-7) $/lb 0.67 1.40 2.01 3.42

percent of import price Percent 21 58 110 183 

9. Wholesale price10 $/lb 3.84 3.84 3.84 5.29

10. Retail costs and margins $/lb NA NA NA NA

11. Retail price $/lb NA NA NA NA

Agmarknet = Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Information Network; Rs = rupees; kg = kilograms; $ = U.S. 

dollars; lb = pound; AMS = USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service; APEDA = Government of India, Agricultural Product Export Development 

Authority; APHIS = USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; c.i.f. = cost, freight, and insurance; NA = No data available.

1Unweighted average of all Maharashtra maximum daily wholesale market prices (Agmarknet).

2Trade estimate. APEDA estimate for these three items is Rs 8.79/kg.

3Trade estimate. APEDA estimate is Rs 6.59/kg.

4Assumes annual fee of $150,000 spread over volume of all mangoes shipped to United States (see below).

5Assumes Rs120-million facility cost spread over 30 years, with 25-percent allocation to U.S. mango shipments (see below).

6Trade estimate. APEDA estimate for these two items is Rs1.83/kg.

7APEDA estimate is Rs110/kg for 2007, increased using U.S. producer price index for air freight services.

8Period averages (Source: http://fx.sauder.ubc.ca/data.html).

9U.S. import unit value from India, all mangoes; adjusted for variety using c.i.f. equivalents of average Indian wholesale prices. No U.S. import 

data for April 2007 (Source: World Trade Atlas). 10AMS terminal market average for India origin. No April-May data for 2007. No 2008, 2009, or 2010 data; 2008 estimated using same percent 

change over 2007 as kesar variety.

Sources: Government of India, Agricultural Marketing Information Network (Agmarknet); USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service; World Trade 

Atlas; Global Trade Information Services. 
12

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

remaining 60 to 80 percent accounted for by handling costs, port charges, and 

trader margins. 

Most Indian mango shipments to the United States are sent by air freight. 

The costs of air freight averaged $2.74 per kilogram (kg) (i.e., 119.8 rupees 

per kg freight cost divided by 43.8 rupees per dollar exchange rate) during 

the 2007-09 seasons, or about 20 percent more than the Indian export price of 

Alphonso mangoes, and this explains a large part of the relatively high price 

for Indian mangoes. Although U.S. wholesale price data for Indian mangoes 

are sparse, the available data indicate that there are also significant markups 

between U.S. import prices and wholesale market prices. The average 

markups between import (cost, insurance, and freight, or c.i.f.) and wholesale 

prices for the periods of available price data have been about 80 percent of 

the import price, with only a minor share of the markup accounted for by the 

fresh mango tariff of 6.6 U.S. cents/kg.

Charges for irradiation treatment for mangoes at the Bhabha Atomic 

Research Center (BARC) facility in Nasik, Maharashtra—the only facility 

currently used for irradiating mangoes—may not reflect the costs borne 

by the Indian export authorities for onsite monitoring and inspections 

by APHIS personnel. The bilateral agreement required the Government 

of India to establish an annual $200,000 trust fund to defer these costs. 

While information on the costs incurred by APHIS and charged to the 

trust fund is not publicly available, India’s Agricultural Product Export 

Development Authority (APEDA) puts actual costs at about $150,000 per 

year (ExpressIndia, 2008).

Also, current irradiation treatment charges do not account for the capital cost 

of building the irradiation facility in Maharashtra, originally built by BARC 

for research purposes in 2002. The cost of constructing an irradiation facility 

in India has been estimated at 120 million rupees ($2.5 million) (Rajendran, 

2009). At present, the BARC facility appears to be used for only parts of a 

few months of the year for irradiating mangoes and some other products, 

including onions. As a relatively nascent technology to facilitate food trade, 

low capacity-utilization rates are likely to impose high initial unit costs of 

treatment, at least until the volume of trade expands.

Several cost items are not fully accounted for in the cost buildup tables. 

Changes in the mode of shipment may be subject to change over time that 

may significantly affect the competitiveness of Indian mangoes in the U.S. 

market, as well as the impacts on Indian growers and U.S. consumers. The 

cost of air freight and importer costs and margins in the United States are the 

two largest components of the wholesale price of Indian mangoes in the U.S. 

market. In 2009 and 2010, Indian exporters experimented with containerized 

sea freight for shipments to the United States to reduce costs. If this mode of 

transport proves successful, reports indicate that freight costs can be reduced 

by 45-55 percent (Das, 2009). Such cost reductions would allow substantially lower U.S. import prices for fresh Indian mangoes and, if achieved 

with freshness and quality comparable with other competitors, could expand 

market share.
13

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

The costs of shipping Indian mangoes to the U.S. market, consisting 

primarily of the costs of air freight and marketing costs and margins within 

India, result in the U.S. import price of Indian mangoes being far higher 

than that of the major U.S. suppliers (table 9). Between 2007 and 2009, U.S. 

import prices for Indian mangoes averaged about four times those of the next 

most expensive supplier, and nearly six times the average U.S. import price. 

Clearly, with current logistics and costs, Indian mangoes are likely to be 

confined to a premium niche for U.S. consumers, including South Asians 

living in the United States who have taste preferences for the Indian varieties. However, cost reductions, through use of sea freight and other efficiencies that may arise from larger volumes of trade, have the potential to make 

Indian mangoes more cost competitive. Our analytical section develops a 

framework for estimating the consumer welfare benefits of these cost reductions generated by regulatory changes and improvements in logistics. 

Table 9

Comparison of U.S. mango import prices from major suppliers 

and India

Country 2007 2008 2009

Dollars per kilogram

India 3.64 4.13 4.21

Dominican Republic 1.20 0.93 0.83

Haiti 0.88 0.99 1.05

Peru 0.81 0.78 1.28

Brazil 0.77 0.94 0.95

Nicaragua 0.74 0.79 0.73

Mexico 0.63 0.67 0.70

Ecuador 0.64 0.62 0.63

Costa Rica 0.48 0.55 0.61

Guatemala 0.43 0.51 0.62

World 0.66 0.71 0.76

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.
14

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

Analytical Approach

To assess the economic implications of increased Indian mango access to 

the U.S. market, we explicitly model the costs and benefits involved with 

the trade in a partial equilibrium model of the U.S. market for mangoes 

similar to that developed by Peterson and Orden (2008) for avocados. Only 

the mango market is modeled, and prices in ancillary markets—the wages 

paid to workers on mango farms, the price of alternate goods that might 

be consumed instead of mangoes, or the price of other crops that may be 

produced—are assumed constant. The model and data used are shown in 

more detail in the appendix.

Consumer Demand 

In our analysis of the U.S. market for Indian mangoes, we represent the 

demand for mangoes and other products as depending on relative prices, 

where the magnitude of the demand response to price changes is determined 

by own- and cross-price elasticities of demand. Since empirical estimates 

may not be available for all own- and cross-price elasticities, the preferences of a representative consumer7 are represented with a weakly separable, 

nested constant elasticity of substitution (CES) utility function (fig. 1). In the 

first stage of consumption, the consumer chooses between mangoes and all 

other goods. The elasticity of substitution parameter σ1 estimates how mango 

demand changes when the relative price between it and the price of all other 

goods changes. In the second stage, a consumer chooses between consuming 

mangoes in different seasons. The parameter σ2 estimates how consumers 

allocate consumption across seasons in response to changes in the relative 

price. In the last stage, consumers choose between mangoes from different 

7By assuming that the elasticity 

of substitution, which measures the 

responsiveness of consumer demand to 

changes in relative prices, is constant 

across a group of products, one is able 

to determine all of the own- and crossprice elasticities.

Figure 1

Preference structure for representative consumer

Utility of representative consumer

Fresh mangoes All other goods

σ1

December

σ2

January

σ3

Indian

June

Mexican Costa Rican 

σ1 = Parameter showing how mango expenditures change as the prices of mangoes relative 

to the price of all other goods change.

σ2

 = Parameter showing how monthly mango expenditures change as the prices of mangoes 

change across months.

σ3

 = Parameter showing how expenditures on mangoes from different origins change as the 

relative price of mangoes across origins changes.
15

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

origins. Again, the parameter σ3 estimates how consumers allocate consumption between mangoes from different origins based on their relative price.

Exporter Supply and Price Linkage

The export supply of fresh mangoes is assumed to be a linear function of 

the freight on board (f.o.b.) price received by producers in a given region. 

Because of limited storage opportunities, we assume that producers cannot 

shift production between months in response to changes in the relative 

producer prices between months. Thus, only the producer price in the current 

month will affect export supply.

Estimating the effect of reductions in wholesale costs, transport margins or 

irradiation costs on import of Indian mangoes requires the specification of the 

relationship between the wholesale price paid by retailers in the United States 

and the price received by mango producers abroad. For mango producers 

outside of India, we assume this relationship is constant in terms of $/kg.8 For 

Indian producers, we specify this relationship in terms of the disaggregated 

costs of shipping mangoes to the United States so that we can later focus 

on how specific costs change. These costs include the cost of transporting 

mangoes to the packing house, the cost of processing and fungicide treatment 

at the packing house, the cost of transportation to the irradiation facility, the 

cost of irradiation, the cost of transportation to the Mumbai airport, the airport 

clearing charges, the margin of the Indian exporter, the cost of transportation 

to the United States, and wholesale margin once goods are in the United States 

(see table 8). The cost of irradiation includes both a fixed charge (for use of the 

facility) and per-unit costs as well. The cost of APHIS inspection is assumed to 

be fixed. Thus, irradiation and inspection include both fixed and per-unit costs 

so that their average cost falls as Indian exports rise.

Model Data and Parameters

Equilibrium price and quantities from 2007 to 2010 (the base period) are 

used to implement the model. The United States produces only a trivially 

small amount of mangoes. Instead, imported quantities, about which information is obtained from USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) (2010), 

represent the market equilibrium quantity. Table 10 lists these values in the 

column labeled Base. Except for Indian shipments, we assume that countries 

whose imports average less than 250 metric tons (mt) are zero in the initial 

equilibrium to avoid modeling very small quantity flows.9 Per capita income 

is average per capita personal income from 2007 to 2010 (U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2011; U.S. Department of 

Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).

U.S. mango wholesale prices (see table 4) are disaggregated by month and 

averaged from 2007 to 2010 to obtain the average wholesale prices used in 

the model, and they only reflect the month when a given country ships to the 

United States. The U.S. wholesale price for Indian mangoes is the average 

wholesale price of Alphonso mangoes, the main variety exported by India to 

the U.S. market during the period.

U.S. wholesale margins are the difference between the average c.i.f. price,10

obtained from FAS trade data, and the U.S. wholesale price. Transport 

8The difference between the wholesale and producer price includes such 

items as transportation and wholesale 

margins. The size of these margins is 

determined by the difference between 

the U.S. wholesale price and the producer price for a given export in a given 

month. While the magnitudes of the 

margins may vary across months and 

exporter, we assume they do not vary 

across time for the same month and 

exporter.

9This assumption does not significantly affect the total quantity of 

mangoes supplied/demanded, reducing 

the total by 808.8 mt, or 0.3 percent.

10The c.i.f. price is the price of a 

good delivered to the frontier of the 

importing country, including any insurance and freight charges incurred to 

that point.
16

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

margins are the difference between the average f.o.b. price and the average 

c.i.f. price. For all supply regions except India, the producer price is the 

average f.o.b. price. For India, the producer price is the average price for 

Alphonso mangoes from 2007 to 2009 (see table 7).

Model parameters from the demand system specification are extrapolated as 

well as inferred from the available literature. To incorporate sensitivity analysis 

for our welfare estimates, we use a Monte Carlo method. In this method, we 

calculate welfare estimates at six values of the model parameters, which are 

drawn from a uniform distribution around an assumed midpoint. We then 

present the averages and standard deviations of the model simulations. We 

assume that the midpoint of the own-price elasticity of demand of mangoes is 

-0.5 and that the elasticity ranges from -0.25 to -0.75 (Bergtold, et al., 2004, 

Richards and Patterson, 2003).11 Because mangoes are perishable and difficult 

to store, we assume that σ2 is constant at zero, which implies that monthly 

mango demand depends only on its wholesale price in each month. We assume 

that the midpoint of σ3—the elasticity of substitution between mangoes from 

different origins—is 1.5 and that it ranges between 1 and 2. The values of all 

other parameters in the CES utility function are calibrated such that the CES 

demand function replicates the initial quantities demanded of fresh mangoes.

With no available econometric estimates for the export supply elasticity of 

fresh mangoes, we assume that the midpoint of ηS (the aggregate import 

supply for mangoes) is 0.5 and that it ranges between 0.25 and 0.75. Similar 

produce with biological lags in production, including avocadoes, have 

comparable production elasticities around 0.4 (Carman and Craft, 1998). 

Because foreign-produced mangoes can be consumed domestically or 

shipped to other destinations in addition to being exported to the United 

States, the export supply elasticity is likely to be larger than the production 

supply elasticity. In general, as the export share of production decreases, 

the elasticity of export supply increases. Because India only exports a very 

small share of its mango production to the United States, we assume that its 

export supply elasticity is 50. This very large value reflects India’s ability to 

increase exports. More detail on model parameters and model calibration are 

provided in the Appendix.

11Because the CES utility function 

is homothetic, all income elasticities 

equal one. However, income is held 

constant in all model simulations.

Table 10

Results for alternate scenarios for U.S. imports of Indian mangoes

Base Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Average price 1.5686 1.5680 1.5666 1.5661 1.5616

Dollars per kilogram (0.0083) (0.0082) (0.0080) (0.0080) (0.0070)

Total quantity 291.4 291.4 291.6 291.6 292.1

1,000 metric tons (1.5) (1.5) (1.5) (1.5) (1.4)

Equivalent variation N.A. 159.24 576.20 733.45 2021.02

1,000 dollars (26.9) (110.2) (135.5) (445.8)

N.A. = Not Applicable.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service simulation.
17

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

Estimated Economic Impacts

We analyze four scenarios for reductions in costs associated with irradiation 

treatment, transportation, and marketing margins of Indian mangoes. Using 

the model outlined previously (and detailed in the appendix), we estimate the 

supply, demand, trade, price, and consumer welfare impacts of each of the 

following four scenarios:

1. 50-percent reduction in regulatory compliance costs (i.e., irradiation

fixed costs and APHIS inspection fees). The fixed costs of irradiation and 

APHIS inspection fees are likely to decrease over time for three reasons. 

First, inspection protocols may change to allow local staff to oversee the 

irradiation process, rather than having APHIS staff perform this task as is 

current practice. Second, irradiation may occur on U.S. soil rather than in 

India, which might make it cheaper. Third, as larger volumes of goods are 

irradiated, economies of scale may make it less expensive. 

2. 50-percent reduction in cost of shipping Indian mangoes to the United

States. Development of sea freight shipping will lower shipping costs if 

logistical challenges, such as the need for climate control methods that 

preserve quality, can be overcome (Bustos-Griffin, et al., 2012).

3. 50-percent reduction in irradiation fixed costs, APHIS inspection fees,

and shipping costs. This scenario combines the previous two scenarios.

4. 50-percent reduction in irradiation fixed costs, APHIS inspection 

fees, shipping costs, and wholesale margins for Indian mangoes in 

the United States. As the trade grows, wholesale margins are likely to 

fall. Indian mangoes being a “new” product in most U.S. markets means 

that relatively few retail outlets distribute them. Those outlets may bear a 

higher cost of promotion and risk.

In all four scenarios, cost reductions lead to lower U.S. wholesale prices 

for Indian mangoes and increased consumer welfare. The key difference is 

the cost reduction’s relative size, as it shows the importance of reductions 

in regulatory and irradiation costs compared with those in transportation 

or wholesale margins costs. These cost reductions in Indian mangoes also 

reduce the demand for mangoes from other origins, as consumers substitute 

the Indian fruit for mangoes from other countries. Our welfare measures 

account for price reductions that cause consumers to switch between 

mangoes from different origins. These effects are explained in the Appendix.

In the first scenario, regulatory compliance costs fall, lowering the costs 

of import compliance. Initially, these costs are $0.895/kilogram12 (see 

table 8). A 50-percent reduction lowers this cost to $0.447/kg. As Indian 

mangoes become relatively less expensive, U.S. consumers substitute Indian 

mangoes for mangoes from other origins. As Indian mango imports increase, 

the inspection and facility costs are spread over a large quantity of fruits, 

reducing the average amount of those costs. This leads to a further $0.033/

kg reduction in the cost of compliance and wholesale prices. Overall, Indian 

exports of fresh mangoes to the United States increase by 8 percent.

12Based on the quantity of mangoes 

exported to the United States from 2007 

to 2010, this figure represents the sum 

of Rs 34.07 (APHIS inspection fee) 

and Rs 5.14 (fixed operating costs), 

converted at Rs 43.79 to the dollar.
18

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

While the APHIS inspections and irradiation costs are significant at approximately 90 cents/kg, these costs account for only about 10 percent of the U.S. 

wholesale price. The two largest components of the U.S. wholesale price are 

wholesale margins and shipping costs and, together, these items account for 

nearly three-quarters of the wholesale price.

Specifically, air-freighting Indian mangoes to the United States costs an estimated $2.74/kg. This cost is about 10 times greater than the South American 

transport costs and 40 times greater than the Mexican cost.13 While the 

longer distance to India is unavoidable, the reliance on air rather than sea 

freight likely explains this cost difference. In the second scenario, we assume 

that the cost of shipping Indian mangoes to the United States falls by half. 

Holding other factors constant, this reduction decreases the U.S. wholesale 

price by 15 percent. Moreover, as exports increase, the fixed costs of compliance are spread over a larger export volume than in the first scenario. This 

leads to an additional 2-percentage-point reduction in the wholesale price 

of mangoes. Overall, the total price reduction increases imports of Indian 

mangoes by 31 percent (table 10). Because Indian mango export supply is 

assumed to be very elastic, most of this benefit is passed onto U.S. consumers 

as price reductions. The Indian producer price increases by 0.6 percent, 

compared with a 0.2-percent increase from a reduction in the fixed cost of 

compliance. 

In the third scenario, both regulatory compliance costs and transport costs 

fall by 50 percent. These reductions decrease the U.S. wholesale price of 

Indian mangoes by 21 percent, or approximately $1.95/kg. The compliance 

and transport cost reductions account for $1.82/kg of the reduction, while the 

remaining $0.13/kg of this reduction arises from economies of scale associated with the 41-percent increase in exports. Note that the total decrease in 

the wholesale price in this third scenario is less than the sum of the price 

decreases in the first two scenarios. This occurs because U.S. consumers not 

only substitute among mangoes from different origins following the drop in 

Indian costs, but increase overall consumption relative to all other goods. The 

movement along the demand curve as increased consumption raises prices 

and offsets a portion of the cost reduction. Indian producer prices increase by 

0.8 percent.

As a niche product, relatively few mangoes are sold, but their wholesale 

price (i.e., their f.o.b. price relative to their c.i.f. price) is high. Wholesale 

margins for Indian mangoes are between 3.7 and 6.2 times higher than those 

of competing suppliers. If Indian mango sales increased substantially, these 

margins would likely fall.

In the last scenario, we assume that, in addition to reductions in transport 

and compliance costs, U.S. wholesale margins for Indian mangoes fall by 50 

percent. These combined effects show a $2.10/kg drop in the U.S. wholesale 

price of Indian mangoes. In total, the wholesale price of Indian mangoes falls 

by 45 percent and exports to the United States more than double, increasing 

by 136 percent. However, even with this large cost reduction, Indian 

mangoes still sell for between two-and-a-half and four times more than 

mangoes from competing suppliers.

13The estimated transport cost of 

other suppliers is defined as the difference between the c.i.f. and f.o.b. prices.
19

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

For each of the four scenarios, we compute the average equivalent variation—a standard measure of a consumer’s economic benefit from a price 

change.14 We also compute a standard deviation of the equivalent variation 

by allowing our assumed supply-and-demand parameters to vary. The standard deviation can be used to create a confidence interval around our estimate of the equivalent variation where the statistical probability is high (e.g., 

approximately 95 percent) so that the actual equivalent variation lies within 

two standard deviations of our estimate of the average.

Because Indian mangoes account for only a very small share of total 

consumption, the average welfare gain—or economic benefit—as measured 

by the equivalent variation, is small across all four scenarios (see table 10). 

In the first scenario, lower compliance costs raise welfare by $159,000, with 

a standard deviation of $27,000. In the second scenario, reduced transport 

costs raise welfare by $576,000, with a standard deviation of $110,000. In 

the third scenario, lower compliance costs and transport costs together raise 

welfare by $735,000, with a standard deviation of $136,000. Finally, in the 

fourth scenario—lower compliance costs, shipping costs, and wholesale 

margins—increases welfare by $2,010,000, with a standard deviation of 

$446,000. While the average equivalent variation is our best estimate of the 

welfare gain, the small size of the standard deviation relative to the estimated 

average indicates that the welfare gains from the cost reduction are likely to 

be positive and close to our estimated average even as we allow for different 

assumptions about consumer and producer substitution patterns.

14The equivalent variation is the 

income increase (or decrease) needed to 

make the average consumer indifferent 

to changes in the cost of compliance, 

transport, or wholesale margins that 

raise (or lower) Indian mangoes’ prices.
20

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

Conclusions

Regulatory change and new risk mitigation options, such as irradiation, could 

provide U.S. consumers with greater access to niche goods, such as Indian 

mangoes. While increased variety and availability of goods are likely to 

benefit consumers, the size of these benefits depends on whether the prices 

for these goods fall in a manner that allows the goods to capture a substantial market share. Currently, India’s share of the imported mango market 

in the United States is small, despite the apparent willingness of some U.S. 

consumers to pay high prices. Our findings indicate that these high prices 

arise primarily from transportation costs and high wholesale margins and not 

from the regulatory or treatment costs.

Import expansion is, therefore, sensitive to innovations that reduce 

transportation and wholesale costs. Even large reductions in the costs of 

treating, shipping, and marketing mangoes to the United States would result 

in only modest cost drops and increased availability of the fruit for U.S. 

consumers. However, Indian mangoes represent only a single good from a 

single origin. When considering the number of niche specialty crops that 

might be exported to the United States from developing countries generally, 

the cumulative impact of cost reductions and availability to U.S. consumers 

could be much greater.
21

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

References

Agmarknet. Data published by the Directorate of Marketing & Inspection 

(DMI), Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, available at http://

agmarknet.nic.in/.

Arndt, C., and T.W. Hertel. 1997. “Revisiting the Fallacy of Free Trade,” 

Review of International Economics 5(2):221-229.

Bergtold, J.S., E. Akobundu, and E.B. Peterson. 2004. “The Fast Method: 

Estimating Unconditional Demand Elasticities for Processed Food in 

the Presence of Fixed Effects,” Journal of Agricultural and Resource 

Economics 29(2):27.

Bustos-Griffin, E., G.J. Hallman, and R.L. Griffin. 2012. Current and potential trade in horticultural products irradiated for phytosanitary purposes. 

Radiation Physics and Chemistry 81(8):1203-1207.

Carman, H.F., and R.K. Craft. 1998. Economic Evaluation of California 

Avocado Industry Marketing Programs: 1961-1998, Research Report 

Series, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of 

California-Berkeley.

Cook, D. 2008. “Benefit cost analysis of an import access request,” Food 

Policy 33(3):277-285.

Das, S. 2009. “Consignment via Sea Route To Boost Mango Export From 

India,” The Financial Express, June 22.

ExpressIndia. 2008. “Ease Restrictions on Mango Imports: India to US,” 

ExpressIndia, June 6.

Fan, X., and K.J.B. Sokorai. 2008. “Retention of Quality and Nutritional 

Value of 13 Fresh-Cut Vegetables Treated with Low-Dose Radiation,” 

Journal of Food Science 73(7):S367-S372.

Ferrier, Peyton. 2009. The Economics of Agricultural and Wildlife 

Smuggling, ERR-81, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, September.

Ferrier, P. 2010. “The Economics of Agricultural and Wildlife Smuggling,” 

Trends in Organized Crime 13(2):219-230.

Ferrier, Peyton. 2010. “Irradiation as a Quarantine Treatment,” Food Policy

35(6):548-555.

Ferrier, Peyton. 2011. “Irradiation of Produce Imports: Small Inroads, 

Big Obstacles,” Amber Waves, 9(2), U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, June.

Follett, P.A., and L.G. Neven. 2005. “Current Trends in Quarantine 

Etymology,” Annual Review of Entomology 51(1):359-385.
22

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

Forsythe, K., and P. Evangelou. 1994. Costs and Benefits of Irradiation 

versus Methyl Bromide Fumigation for Disinfestation of U.S. Fruit 

and Vegetable Imports, AGES-9412, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service.

Fox, J.A., D.J. Hayes, and J.F. Shogren. 2002. “Consumer Preferences for 

Food Irradiation: How Favorable and Unfavorable Descriptions Affect 

Preferences for Irradiated Pork in Experimental Auctions,” Journal of 

Risk and Uncertainty 24(1):75-95.

Hayes, D.J., J.A. Fox, and J.F. Shogren. 2002. “Experts and Activists: How 

Information Affects the Demand for Food Irradiation,” Food Policy

27(2):185-193.

Kavilanz, Parja B. 2007.Indian Mangoes Arrive in the U.S. After Long 

Hiatus, CNNMoney.com, May,http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/01/news/

international/indian_mangoes/index.htm.

Livingston, Michael, and Craig Osteen. 2008. Integrating Invasive Species 

Prevention and Control Policies, EB-11, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, September, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eb-economic-brief/eb11.aspx.

Livingston, M.J. 2007. “The Mediterranean Fruit Fly and the United States: 

Is the Probit 9 Level of Quarantine Security Efficient?” Canadian Journal 

of Agricultural Economics 55(4):515-526.

Lynch, L., and E. Lichtenberg. 2006. “Foreword: Special Issue on Invasive 

Species,” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 35(1):iii-v.

Margosian, M.L., C.A. Bertone, D.M. Borchert, and Y. Takeuchi. 2007. 

Identification of Areas Susceptible to the Establishment of Fifty-three 

Bactrocera spp. (Diptera: Tephrididae: Dacinae) in the United States, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/fruit_

flies/index.shtml.

Parkhurst, G.M., J.F. Shogren, and D.L. Dickinson. 2004. “Negative Values 

in Vickrey Auctions,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics

86(1):222-235.

Peterson, E.B., and D. Orden. 2008. “Avocado Pests and Avocado Trade,” 

American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(2):321-335.

Rajendran, M. 2009. Mango Exports Turn Sour: The High Cost of Indian 

Mangoes in the US is Affecting Their Exports, New Delhi, India, ABP 

Pvt. Ltd.

Richards, Timothy, and Paul Patterson. 2003. Competition in Fresh Produce 

Markets: An Empirical Analysis of Channel Performance, CCR-1, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, http://naldc.nal.

usda.gov/catalog/32805.
23

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

Roy, Sandip. 2009. Indian Mangoes Now In America, National Public Radio 

broadcast, June 11, 2009, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.

php?storyId=104881449.

Stroud, A.H. 1957. “Remarks on the Disposition of Points in Numerical 

Integration Formulas,” Mathematical Tables and Other Aids to 

Computing 60(11):257-261.

United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization. 2008. FAOSTAT: 

Agricultural Trade Statistics. 

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Harmful 

Non-Indigenous Species in the United States, OTA-F-565, http://www.

princeton.edu/~ota/ns20/year_f.html.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. 2008. Fresh 

Fruit and Vegetable Shipments by Commodities, States, and Months, 

FVAS-4 Calendar Year 2008. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2010. Fruit 

and Tree Nut Yearbook.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. 2010. Global 

Agricultural Trade System, Vol. 2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2011. SA1-3 

Personal Income Summary, March 2011, http://www.bea.gov/regional/

index.htm.

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 

2011. Table 1, Preliminary Annual Estimates of the Resident Population 

for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to 

July 1, 2010, NST-PEST 2010-01, February, http://www.census.gov/

popest/estimates.html.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug 

Administration. 2007. “Irradiation in the Production, Processing, and 

Handling of Food,” Federal Register 72:16291-16306.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2003. Invasive Species: State 

and Other Nonfederal Perspectives on Challenges to Managing the 

Problem, GAO-03-1089R, September, http://www.gao.gov/products/

GAO-03-1089R.

World Trade Atlas. 2011. Global Trade Information Services, Inc.: 

Columbia, SC, http://www.gtis.com.

You, Z., J.E. Epperson, and C.L. Huang. 1996. “A Composite System 

Demand Analysis for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables in the United States,” 

Journal of Food Distribution Research 27(3).
24

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix

Model Description

To evaluate the effect of cost reduction for Indian mangoes, a partial equilibrium model is constructed, similar to that developed by Peterson and 

Orden (2008). When Costa Rica and Nicaragua and Ecuador and Peru are 

aggregated together, seven regions/countries—Costa Rica and Nicaragua 

(CR-Nic); Ecuador and Peru (Ecu-Peru); Brazil; Guatemala; Haiti; India; and 

Mexico—supply 99.8 percent of all mangoes exported to the United States 

(which has very little domestic supply). The model is specified in 12 monthly 

time periods to capture seasonality.

Despite the lack of U.S. domestic mango production, mango-borne pests 

from imported fruit can harm other crops once in the United States. 

Agricultural producers in regions where other crops are susceptible to the 

insect pests that imported mangoes can carry often oppose the liberalization 

of phytosanitary trade restrictions because they bear the brunt of any harm 

that may be caused. Because irradiation treatment, however, mitigates much 

of the pest risk, we do not identify susceptible and nonsusceptible regions of 

the United States as previous authors have (Peterson and Orden, 2008).15

Prior to the model’s development, we tested whether the observed differences in wholesale prices were due to region of origin or to other factors, 

such as variety and size of fruit. If wholesale price differences are significant 

after controlling for other factors, then fresh mangoes may be viewed as 

heterogeneous products, varying by export regions. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) results show how these other factors—city market, region 

of origin, year, mango variety, package size, and fruit size—affect weekly 

average wholesale prices (table A1). After controlling for these factors, 

wholesale prices are significantly different across all regions of origin, except 

for between Haiti and Peru. Subsequently, we treat them as heterogeneous 

goods and imperfect substitutes.

Consumer Demand

In this model, the demand for fresh mangoes is derived from a weakly 

separable, nested CES utility function where a representative consumer 

is assumed to partition purchases between mangoes and everything else. 

Mangoes from each region are imperfect substitutes.

We used a preference structure in our analysis (see fig. 1, p. 14).The parameter s1 represents the elasticity of substitution between fresh mangoes and 

all other goods. A decrease in the overall price of mangoes (represented 

by a price index) relative to all other goods, whose price is assumed to 

remain constant, would lead the representative consumer to increase his/her 

consumption of mangoes from all supply regions. To capture the seasonality 

of the mango supply from different sources, the second stage of the utility 

function represents monthly mango consumption. The parameter s2 represents the elasticity of substitution between mangoes across seasons. Because 

fresh mangoes are not storable for extended periods, we assume that the elasticity of substitution between months equals zero. A decrease in the prices of 

mangoes in one month does not directly cause consumers to shift consump15Margosian et al. (2007) identify 

areas susceptible to the establishment 

of the seven Bactrocera species in the 

Indian mango pest-risk assessment.

These areas have a risk ranking of 4 

or higher on the APHIS scale (which 

ranges from 1 to 10) and include parts of 

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, 

Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, New Mexico, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas.
25

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 1

Analysis of variance results for U.S.weekly average wholesale price of mangoes

Variable1 Coefficient Standard error P-value

Constant 6.89 0.09 0.000

City Atlanta -0.71 0.08 0.000

Baltimore -0.30 0.08 0.000

Boston -0.97 0.07 0.000

Chicago -1.47 0.08 0.000

Dallas -0.87 0.07 0.000

Detroit -0.72 0.07 0.000

Los Angeles -1.48 0.07 0.000

Miami -1.21 0.08 0.000

New York -0.93 0.08 0.000

Philadelphia -1.05 0.08 0.000

Pittsburgh -0.24 0.10 0.012

San Francisco -1.00 0.07 0.000

Seattle 0.37 0.08 0.000

Country Brazil 1.17 0.04 0.000

Ecuador 0.17 0.04 0.000

Guatemala -0.49 0.05 0.000

Haiti 0.58 1.07 0.586

Mexico -0.66 0.03 0.000

Year 2004 -0.95 0.03 0.000

2005 -0.60 0.03 0.000

2006 -0.23 0.03 0.000

2007 0.14 0.03 0.000

Variety Ataulfo 4.11 0.05 0.000

Francine 2.27 1.07 0.034

Francis 1.80 1.07 0.091

Haden 0.18 0.04 0.000

Keitt -0.28 0.05 0.000

Kent -0.39 0.03 0.000

Package size 4-kilogram container -0.23 0.04 0.000

4.5- to 5-kilogram container 0.65 0.11 0.000

Cartons 1 layer -0.21 0.03 0.000

Flats/cartons 1 layer -0.56 0.08 0.000

Fruit size 7 0.80 0.05 0.000

8 0.81 0.04 0.000

9 0.83 0.04 0.000

10 0.65 0.04 0.000

12 0.44 0.04 0.000

Number of observations 24,836

F-value 515.38 0.000

R2 0.43

Adjusted R2 0.43

1The dropped variables are: St. Louis (city), Peru (country), 2008 (year), Tommy Atkins (variety), flats 1 layer (package size), and 14 (fruit size).

Source: USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service.
26

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

tion between individual months. It may, however, indirectly increase 

consumption in all months by decreasing the overall mango price index. 

Finally, the parameter s3 represents the elasticity of substitution between 

mangoes from all suppliers in a given month.16

Based on the preference structure in figure 1, with i indexing the supply 

region and t indexing the month, the uncompensated demand function for 

fresh mangoes is

(1)

Where

•	ait is the preference parameter for mangoes, 

•	bt is the preference parameter for mango consumption, 

•	γ is the preference parameter for aggregate mango consumption (relative 

to all other goods), 

•	wpit is the wholesale price of fresh mangoes, 

•	I is per-capita income, and

•	pop is the population.

Note that the price index for all other goods is held constant in the partial 

equilibrium model and set equal to 1 without any loss of generality, and any 

change in the mango price index represents a change in relative prices. Thus, 

it does not appear in the denominator in equation 1.

There are two price indices in the uncompensated demand function in equation 1. The index PIt

 is the price index of mangoes defined as

(2)

The index PM is the aggregate price index for mangoes and is defined as

(3)

Note that when σ2 equals zero, equation 3 simplifies to

Export Supply

The export supply of fresh mangoes from all regions is assumed to be a linear 

function of the f.o.b. price received by producers in that region. Because of 

perishability, relative price changes in prices between months do not affect 

16When goods in the model are 

homogenous and perfect substitutes, the 

parameter s3 equals infinity.

( ) ( )

( ) ( )

3 32 32

2 1 1

it t it t

it

wp PI PM I

q pop PM

σ σσ σσ

α

α βγ

γ γ

− − −

−

  =  

+ −  

{ }3 3

1

1 1 PI wp t i it it α −σ −σ = ∑

{ }2 2

1

1 1 PM PI it t

σ σ β − − = ∑

PM PI = ∑it t β
27

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

export supply. Subsequently, export supply is a function of the current price 

only

(4)

In equation 4, with i indexing the supply region and t indexing the month, 

yit is the export supply of fresh mangoes, ppit is the f.o.b. price of fresh 

mangoes, mit is a model parameter for the intercept term in price relationship 

and τit is a model parameter for the slope parameters in the price relationship.

Price Linkage and Market Clearing Equations

The relationship between the wholesale price paid by U.S. consumers and the 

price received by mango producers is expressed in the price linkage equations. For all suppliers except for India, the wholesale price is defined as

(5)

Where

tmarginit is the difference between the c.i.f. and f.o.b. prices of fresh 

mangoes, and wmarginit is the wholesale margin for mangoes.

Both margins are assumed to be constant for countries other than India. For 

India, the price linkage equation includes the compliance costs, transportation costs, and Indian exporter margins. Specifically

(6)

Where

•	packtran is the cost (dollars/kilogram) of transporting mangoes to the 

packing house, 

•	packproc is the cost ($/kg) of processing and fungicide at the packing 

house, 

•	irradtran is the cost ($/kg) of transportation to the irradiation facility, 

•	irrad is the cost ($/kg) of irradiation, 

•	airtran is the cost ($/kg) of transportation to the Mumbai airport, 

•	airclear is the airport clearing charges ($/kg), 

•	expmarg is the Indian exporter margin ($/kg), 

•	airfreg is the cost ($/kg) of air freight to the United States, 

•	irradfix is a fixed charge ($) for use of the irradiation facility, and

•	inspect is the cost of APHIS inspection in India ($).

it it it it y pp = + μ τ

wp pp tmargin wmargin i India it it it it = + + ∀ ∉

( )

it it

it

it t

wp pp packtran packproc irradtran irrad

airtran airclear expmarg airfreg

irradfix inspect wmargin i India

y 

=+ + + +

++ + ++

+

+ ∀∈ ∑
28

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

Note that because these last two costs are fixed, their sum is divided by the 

total quantity of mangoes exported to the United States to determine the cost 

per kilogram. So as Indian exports to the United States expand, this average 

cost decreases.

The market clearing equations is formally specified as

(7)

Welfare Measures

Our measure of the welfare benefit to U.S. consumers is the equivalent variation (EV). The EV is the amount of income consumers would need to be 

paid, while retaining the initial level of prices to reach an equivalent level as 

they would from a price change. Formally, the equivalent variation is defined 

as

(8)

Where e is the expenditure function, p0 is initial prices, u0 is the base level 

of utility, and u1 is the level of utility after a price change. Because the CES 

utility function for the representative consumer is homothetic, the expenditure function is a linear function of utility. Thus, equation 8 can be rewritten 

as

(9)

Because the expenditure function is for a representative consumer, it can be 

multiplied by the population to obtain the total level of EV.

The unit expenditure function for the CES utility function, e(p), depicted in 

equation 1, can be expressed as

(10)

Where PM is the aggregate mango price index as defined in equation 3. The 

base level of utility (u0) and the level of utility after a change in policy or 

margin(u1)are computed from the indirect utility function, specified as

(11)

The parameters in the export supply-and-demand equations are chosen such 

that the model will replicate the initial prices and quantities. We draw on 

available literature for the magnitudes of the demand-and-export supply elasticities for mangoes in the model.

it it y q =

( ) ( ) 01 00 EV e p u e p u = − , ,

01 0 EV pop e p u u = − × ( )( )

( ) ( ) 1 1

1

1 1 e p PM 1 σ σ γ γ − − = +−    

( ) 1 1

1

1 1 u PM 1 I σ σ γ γ − − = +− ×    
29

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

Demand Calibration

To incorporate the sensitivity analysis into our model, we generate random 

values of the parameters s1 , s3 , and ηS (the supply elasticity), calculate 

our welfare estimate at each value of the parameters, and then present the 

average results and standard deviations for the welfare estimates. Our parameters-generation procedure uses symmetric order three Gaussian quadratures. 

Following Stroud (1957) and Arndt and Hertel (1997), this requires that 

we draw six sets of parameters from a symmetric uniform distribution with 

specific endpoints, or in our case independent uniform distributions.17 We 

draw on existing literature to provide the assumed midpoint and endpoints 

for our distributions of s1 , s3 , and ηS.

You et al. (1996) and Richards and Patterson (2003) both estimate that the 

own-price demand elasticity for fresh fruits and vegetables in the United 

States is approximately -0.4. However, the elasticity of demand tends to be 

smaller for aggregate product categories (in absolute value terms) than for 

more disaggregate product categories (Bergtold, et al., 2004). Moreover, 

demand is likely to be more elastic when the product is a smaller share of 

consumer expenditure. Fresh mango consumption accounts for approximately 1.5 percent of total fresh fruit consumption in the United States 

(Economic Research Service, 2010) and, for these reasons, we use -0.5 as the 

midpoint of the own-price demand elasticity, with -0.25 and -0.75 being the 

endpoints of the distribution.

Because the econometric estimates are based on consumption data aggregated across space and time, we use the estimate of the aggregate demand 

elasticity to choose the value of σ1, the elasticity of substitution between 

fresh mangoes and all other goods. Using the elasticity form of the Slutsky 

decomposition, the own-price elasticity for mangoes (εM) is expressed as a 

function of its cost share (SM), the own-price Allen partial elasticity of substitution (σMM), and the good’s income elasticity (ηM). Formally

(12)

Because the CES preference structure is homothetic, ηM equals 1 for all 

goods. In addition, the value of σMM is expressed as

(13) 

Combining equations 12 and 13 and solving for σ1 yields

( )

1 1

M M

M

s

s

ε

σ

− + = −

(14)

Note that if SM is relatively small, as with fresh mangoes, then –εM ≈ σ1.

We use 1.5 as the midpoint of our (uniform) distribution of σ3, the elasticity 

of substitution between mango varieties, and assume it ranges between 1 and 

2. Because these values of σ3 exceed σ1, all mango varieties are net substitutes 

17Stroud (1957) has shown that for 

a symmetric distribution, such as the 

uniform or triangular, the model needs 

to be resolved only 2n times, where n

is the number of exogenous variables 

or parameters, to conduct a systematic 

sensitivity analysis. Arndt and Hertel 

(1997) have shown that systematic 

sensitivity analyses conducted using 

order three quadratures are as accurate 

as higher order quadratures.

ε ση M M MM M = − s ( )

( ) 1

1 1 MM M σ σ s

− =− −
30

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

(given that σ2 equals zero). With these values of σ1, σ2, and σ3, the values of 

the shift parameters (ait, βt, and γ) are calculated such that the CES demand 

functions can replicate the initial quantities demanded of fresh mangoes.

Supply Calibration

No information is available on the export-supply elasticities for fresh 

mangoes. Based on related work by Carman and Craft (1998), we use 0.5 as 

the midpoint of our (uniform) distribution of ηS, the supply elasticity, and 

assume it ranges between 0.25 and 0.75. Those authors find that avocados, 

another tree fruit, have a production supply elasticity of less than 0.2. 

However, export supply is likely more elastic than production supply because 

goods shipped to alternative export destinations or the domestic market 

can be redirected to the United States in response to a change in prices. 

Moreover, export supply is likely to be more elastic if the country’s share 

of exports is smaller. For this reason, we assume that India, as the world’s 

largest exporter and producer of mangoes with only a miniscule share of 

exports being shipped to the United States, has a constant export supply elasticity of 50.

Given the initial producer price, quantity exported, and export supply elasticity (ηi

), our calibrated value of τit is

(15)

Note that we assume that the export supply elasticity is constant across all 

months for each supplier. Then, using the initial producer price, export quantity, and the calibrated value of τit(τit

*), the value of μit is equal to 

(16)

Indian Mango Price Reductions and Supply and Demand 

by Other Exporters 

In the scenarios analyzed, reductions in compliance costs, transport costs, 

or U.S. wholesale margins lead to lower U.S. wholesale prices for Indian 

mangoes in a similar way across all scenarios. Results from the first scenario 

illustrate these effects.

In scenario 1, the compliance costs for Indian mango exporters fall with a 

reduction in the APHIS inspection fee and the fixed fee to use the irradiation 

facility. The reduced compliance cost lowers the price of Indian mangoes 

relative to other suppliers, inducing U.S. consumers to substitute Indian 

mangoes for mangoes from other origins during the months that Indian 

mangoes are available. The reduction in the U.S. wholesale price for Indian 

mangoes also reduces the monthly price index of mangoes, PIt

, for the 

months that India exports mangoes to the United States. As shown in equation 2, the magnitude of the reduction in PIt

 depends on relative magnitudes 

of the parameter ait. Higher consumption of Indian mangoes implies a larger 

value of ait for India and a larger decrease in PIt

. Since May and June have 

the largest exports of Indian mangoes, these months have the largest decrease 

i it

it

it

y

pp

η τ =

it it it it y pp * μ τ = −
31

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

in PIt of approximately 0.2 to 0.3 percent in both demand regions. Because it 

is assumed that consumers do not shift mango consumption across months as 

relative prices change (e.g., σ2 = 0), the changes in PIt

 across months do not 

directly lead to changes in seasonal mango consumption.

Like the reduction in the wholesale price of Indian mangoes, the reduction 

in PIt

 for April-July reduces the aggregate mango price index, PM. Also like 

the monthly price index, the months with larger overall mango consumption 

will have the largest values of βt and thus will have the largest impact on 

the value of PM, as shown in equation 3. Because the period between April 

and July has the largest consumption of fresh mangoes, the reduction in PIt 

for those months results in a reduction in PM. This implies that mangoes are 

now relatively less expensive and U.S. consumers substitute mangoes for 

“all other goods.” Because the nested CES utility function is homothetic, 

the expansion in mango consumption increases monthly mango consumption proportionally. In January-March and August-December, this implies 

increased demand for fresh mangoes from all suppliers. The larger the export 

supply elasticity of the supplier, the larger the increase in consumption. 

In April-July, the expansion in mango consumption further increases the 

demand for Indian mangoes. For the mango suppliers that directly compete 

with India, whether consumption increases or decreases depends on whether 

the expansion effect dominated the substitution effect. For the base model 

parameters, the substitution effect dominates in April-June, but the expansion 

effect dominates in July. Table A2 gives the changes in mango consumption 

across months for India and all countries.

The change in U.S. consumer demand also affects mango producers. In the 

months that India does not export to the United States, the expansion of 

U.S. consumption increases both wholesale prices and producer prices in all 

exporting regions. In April-June, the decrease in U.S. consumption for nonIndian suppliers reduces both wholesale and producer prices. The increase in 

demand for Indian mangoes also increases Indian producer prices. Because 

all supply regions have months when they do not directly compete with 

Indian suppliers, the impact on each region’s average producer price depends 

on that region’s seasonal production patterns. As table A3 indicates, mango 

producers in Guatemala, Haiti, and Mexico ship a majority of their exports 

to the United States in April-June and their average annual prices fall in the 

months when Indian imports increase.
32

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 2

Wholesale and producer prices and quantities of mangoes, by month and origin

Quantity demand (metric tons)

Region Supplier Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

Susceptible Brazil 144.1 681.5 2587.0 3537.6 1889.4

Susceptible

Costa RicaNicaragua 479.0 409.4 87.8

Susceptible Ecuador-Peru 6390.7 4070.1 2429.9 118.8 933.4 6177.5 5388.9

Susceptible Guatemala 694.8 2852.3 1763.0 198.8

Susceptible Haiti 390.9 602.3 608.7 417.8 142.3

Susceptible India 8.4 30.6 45.0 1.6

Susceptible Mexico 1326.3 8048.7 11794.2 12638.4 16836.4 14451.5 10382.3 3645.4 320.0

Nonsusceptible Brazil 305.0 319.1 4321.6 6262.4 4116.1

Nonsusceptible

Costa RicaNicaragua 1075.6 1000.7 240.2

Nonsusceptible Ecuador-Peru 9122.8 6808.8 3074.9 176.1 1192.3 4335.7 5930.0

Nonsusceptible Guatemala 1006.2 3945.6 3052.6 282.8

Nonsusceptible Haiti 1141.8 1912.3 1508.4 913.4 210.1

Nonsusceptible India 11.6 42.4 62.3 2.2

Nonsusceptible Mexico 1829.4 10106.9 15813.8 19866.8 22448.5 21941.0 15359.3 4212.3 299.8

Wholesale price (dollars per kilogram)

Susceptible Brazil 1.8 1.9 2.1 1.7 1.5

Susceptible

Costa RicaNicaragua 2.0 1.5 1.2

Susceptible Ecuador-Peru 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.5 2.2 1.6 1.4

Susceptible Guatemala 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2

Susceptible Haiti 2.1 1.9 2.1 1.9 1.9

Susceptible India 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3

Susceptible Mexico 2.3 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.5

Nonsusceptible Brazil 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.4

Nonsusceptible

Costa RicaNicaragua 2.0 1.5 1.3

Nonsusceptible Ecuador-Peru 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.4 2.4 1.7 1.5

Nonsusceptible Guatemala 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.4

Nonsusceptible Haiti 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.3

Nonsusceptible India 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3

Nonsusceptible Mexico 2.4 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.8

Producer price (dollars per kilogram)

Brazil 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

Costa RicaNicaragua 0.7 0.7 0.8

Ecuador-Peru 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.7

Guatemala 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6

Haiti 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0

India 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Mexico 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8

Monthly mango price index

Susceptible Total 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.4

Nonsusceptible Total 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.5

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service simulation.
33

Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes / ERR-142

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 3

Detailed welfare estimates for four scenarios of cost shifts, by month

Base

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

50-percent reduction in irradiation fixed 

costs and APHIS inspection fees 

50-percent reduction in cost of shipping 

Indian mangoes to the United States 

Price ($/kg) Quantity (mt) Price ($/kg) Quantity (mt) Price ($/kg) Quantity (mt)

India All India All India All India All India All India All

Jan. NA 1.5 0 15,513.5 NA 1.5 0 15,516.3 NA 1.5 0 15,523.67

Feb. NA 1.7 0 14,034.6 NA 1.7 0 14,037.1 NA 1.7 0 14,043.57

Mar. NA 1.9 0 27,365.1 NA 1.9 0 27,370.1 NA 1.9 0 27,383.02

Apr. 9.2 1.5 20 37,663.6 8.8 1.5 21.7 37,662.3 7.7 1.5 26.5 37,659.18

May 9.2 1.5 73 40,236.4 8.8 1.5 78.9 40,213.2 7.7 1.5 96.0 40,153.93

June 9.2 1.6 107.3 41,990.9 8.8 1.6 115.9 41,956.3 7.7 1.6 140.8 41,867.74

July 9.2 1.3 3.8 37,727.5 8.8 1.3 4.1 37,732.5 7.7 1.3 5.0 37,745.5

Aug. NA 1.3 0 27,094.6 NA 1.3 0 27,099.5 NA 1.3 0 27,112.32

Sept. NA 1.6 0 14,766.3 NA 1.6 0 14,768.9 NA 1.6 0 14,775.75

Oct. NA 1.9 0 12,545.5 NA 1.8 0 12,547.7 NA 1.8 0 12,553.59

Nov. NA 1.6 0 16,518.7 NA 1.6 0 16,521.7 NA 1.6 0 16,529.51

Dec. NA 1.5 0 11,318.9 NA 1.5 0 11,321.0 NA 1.5 0 11,326.36

Total 

(standard 

deviation) 9.3

1.5

(0.0083) 204.1 

296,775.6

(1,541.2) 8.8

1.5

(0.0082) 220.7 

29,6746.4

(1,535.0) 7.7

1.5

(0.0080) 268.3 

29,6674.1

(1,513.2)

Equivalent variation - Average total dollars 

(standard deviation)

$159.24 $576.20

(26.9) (110.2)

Base

Scenario 3 Scenario 4

50-percent reduction in irradiation 

fixed costs, APHIS inspection fees, 

and shipping costs

50-percent reduction in irradiation fixed 

costs, APHIS inspection fees, shipping 

costs, and wholesale margins for Indian 

mangoes in the United States

Price ($/kg) Quantity (mt) Price ($/kg) Quantity (mt) Price ($/kg) Quantity (mt)

India All India All India All India All India All India All

Jan. NA 1.5 0 15,513.5 NA 1.5 0 15,526.4 NA 1.5 0 15,549.2

Feb. NA 1.7 0 14,034.6 NA 1.7 0 14,046.0 NA 1.7 0 14,066.1

Mar. NA 1.9 0 27,365.1 NA 1.9 0 27,387.9 NA 1.9 0 27,428.1

Apr. 9.3 1.5 20 37,663.6 7.3 1.5 28.4 37,658.2 5.1 1.5 48.8 37,653.1

May 9.3 1.5 73 40,236.4 7.3 1.5 103.1 40,132.1 5.1 1.5 174.6 39,966.5

June 9.3 1.6 107.3 41,990.9 7.3 1.6 151.0 41,835.2 5.1 1.5 254.3 41,588.4

July 9.3 1.3 3.8 37,727.5 7.3 1.3 5.4 37,750.5 5.1 1.3 9.3 37,791.6

Aug. NA 1.3 0 27,094.6 NA 1.3 0 27,117.2 NA 1.3 0 27,156.9

Sept. NA 1.6 0 14,766.3 NA 1.6 0 14,778.3 NA 1.6 0 14,799.5

Oct. NA 1.8 0 12,545.5 NA 1.8 0 12,555.8 NA 1.8 0 12,573.9

Nov. NA 1.6 0 16,518.7 NA 1.6 0 16,532.5 NA 1.6 0 16,556.7

Dec. NA 1.5 0 11,318.9 NA 1.5 0 11,328.4 NA 1.5 0 11,345.1

Total 

(standard 

deviation) 9.3

1.5

(0.0083) 204.1 

296,775.6

(1,541.2) 7.3

1.5

(0.0080) 287.9 

296,648.5

(1,507.7) 5.1

1.5

(0.0070) 487.0 

296,475.1

(1,422.2)

Equivalent variation - Average total dollars 

(standard deviation)

$733.45 $ 2,021.02

(135.5) (445.8)

Kg = kilogram. Mt = metric ton. NA = data not available. APHIS = USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service simulation.