I.. I. '5

» tmh

. ‘

‘)uu5..... .Mnr

ha. .93

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40:5 J

il.:v. .

)v.’ :
.v i.
111.

 

 

r 35.. .mflhhv.

.- JI-

...1s.,; 3.; .
. .3 .21...-
2.1;... 315....

: F.
.3 x 35 i9

13.
‘ .‘1.

.¢ .1
gain?

§f§1§§y§ ,gfig . ‘ 1 ,

 

LIBRARY
\ Michigan State
9 3 9/; University

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

A RAPID APPRAISAL ASSESSMENT OF MARKETS FOR
COMMON BEANS OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ORIGIN IN
US. ETHNIC COMMUNITIES

presented by

MIGUEL ANTONIO ZAMORA

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in Agricultural Economics

 

Tat—M VIM

Major Professor’s Signature
3’1 11,0 3

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

'

_-A~—.-'-_-'_'__v

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

JUN 1 0 200?

IS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#
2/05 c:/CIRC/DateDue.indd-p.15

A RAPID APPRAISAL ASSESSMENT OF MARKETS FOR COMMON BEANS OF
CENTRAL AMERICAN ORIGIN IN US. ETHNIC COMMUNITIES

By

Miguel Antonio Zamora

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fillfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Agricultural Economics

2005

ABSTRACT

A RAPID APPRAISAL ASSESSMENT OF MARKETS FOR DRY BEANS OF
CENTRAL AMERICAN ORIGIN IN US. ETHNIC COMMUNITIES

By

Miguel Antonio Zamora

At the end of 2001, the US Census Bureau estimated that around 2.3 million
people in the US. were of Central American origin. While this community represents a
potential market for Central American exports, no study has been carried out to describe
the ethnic markets in the US. for Central American dry beans. US. Census data were
analyzed to determine the states and cities with the highest concentration of people from
these countries. The research found that Central Americans are highly concentrated in
specific cities within the US. Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and
Washington, DC. were chosen for having a high concentration of Central Americans and
visited in order to: a) obtain data on the availability of beans in ethnic retail stores, b)
survey Central American consumers regarding their dry beans preferences, c) survey
importers and distributors to understand the dynamics of the dry bean trade. Twenty-six
small red and eight black bean brands of Central American origin were sold in the 30
groceries visited. Central American dry beans sell at a price 25-50% higher than US
beans of similar market classes. Furthermore, people of Central American origin have a
strong preference for dry beans from their country of origin. At least an additional 7,500
MT of small red beans could be imported from Central America to satisfy people of

Central American origin’s current demand for these beans.

To the Central American small-scale farmers.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks to my major professor and thesis advisor, Dr. Richard Bernsten,

for supporting me during my entire Masters program.

Thanks to my committee members, Dr. Irvin Widders, and Dr. Michael Weber.
Also, thanks to faculty and staff in the Department of Agricultural Economics for their

assistance and patience.

To the BEAN/COWPEA Collaborative Research Support Program (Grant No.

GDG-G-OO-OZ-OOOIZ-OO) for funding my graduate program and thesis research.

To my colleagues in Cook Hall for their advice and company.
To the functionaries of the Central American embassies and consulates in the US.

for their assistance in my field work.

To Kathryn, my family and friends. To God.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... VIII
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... IX
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 1
1.2 OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................ 3
1.3 THESIS ORGANIZATION ....................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER TWO
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 6
2.1 THE GEOGRAPHICAL CONCENTRATION OF HISPANIC POPULATIONS IN THE US. 6
2.2 BEAN TRADE BETWEEN CENTRAL AMERICAN COUNTRIES AND THE US. ............ 7
2.3 HISPANIC GROCERS AND CONSUMERS PREFERENCES ........................................... 7
2.3.1 Hispanic grocery stores ...................................................................................... 7
2.3.2 Consumers of CA0 ............................................................................................ 8
2.4 BEAN DISTRIBUTION CHAIN ................................................................................. 8
CHAPTER THREE
THE GEOGRAPHICAL CONCENTRATION OF CENTRAL AMERICANS
INTHEU.S......... ........................................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER FOUR
U.S. BEAN EXPORTS TO CENTRAL AMERICA AND IMPORTS FROM
CENTRAL AMERICA ............................................................................................... 13
4.1 TOTAL DRY BEAN EXPORTS AND IMPORTS ........................................................ 13
4.2 SMALL RED BEAN AND BLACK BEAN EXPORTS ................................................. 16
CHAPTER FIVE
CENTRAL AMERICAN BEANS IN THE US SUBSECTOR ............................... 20
5.1 SUBSECTOR PARTICIPANTS ................................................................................ 20
5.1.1 CAO growers firms ......................................................................................... 21
5.1.2 CAO wholesalers/exporters ............................................................................ 21
5.1.3 U.S. importers ................................................................................................. 22
5.1.4 U.S. distributors/wholesalers .......................................................................... 22
5.1.5 US. Hispanic grocery stores/supermarkets. ................................................... 23
5.1.6 US. Hispanic consumers. ............................................................................... 25
5.1.7 Potential U.S. Demand for beans of CA0 ...................................................... 30

5.2 DYNAMICS IN THE SUBSECTOR .......................................................................... 33

5.2.1. Importer-driven trade ...................................................................................... 33
5.2.2 Exporter-driven trade ...................................................................................... 34
5.3. CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR EXPANDING BEAN EXPORTS FROM
CENTRAL AMERICA TO THE US. ........................................................................ 34
5.3.1 Constraints ....................................................................................................... 34
5.3.2 OPPORTUNITIES ................................................................................................. 35
CHAPTER SIX
SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS ........................................................ 37
6.1 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 37
6.2 POLICY IMPLICATIONS ....................................................................................... 39
6.3 LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................... 41
6.4 FUTURE RESEARCH ............................................................................................ 41
APPENDIX 1. TRACKING EXAMPLE .................................................................... 43
APPENDIX 2. SURVEY GUIDE FOR BEAN DISTRIBUTORS/IMPORTERS. 45
APPENDIX 3. SURVEY GUIDE FOR PEOPLE OF CAO ....................................... 48

APPENDIX 4. POPULATIONS OF PEOPLE OF CAO IN THE US. BY

STATES AND PUERTO RICO. ...................................................... 50
APPENDIX 5. POPULATION OF PEOPLE OF HISPANIC ORIGIN-IN

SELECTED CENSUS TRACTS IN WASHINGTON, DC. ............ 52
APPENDIX 6. CONTACT INFORMATION OF IMPORTERS, TRADERS,

AND EXPORTERS. .......................................................................... 53
APPENDIX 7. ETHNIC GROCERY STORES THAT WERE VISITED IN

THE SELECTED CITIES. ................................................................ 54

APPENDIX 8. FREQUENCIES OF BRANDS FOUND IN ETHNIC
GROCERY STORES VISITED IN CHICAGO (CHI),
LOS ANGELES (LA), MIAMI (MIA), WASHINGTON,
DC. (DC), AND SAN FRANCISCO (SFO), BY

MARKET CLASS/ORIGIN. ............................................................. 55
APPENDIX 9. MAP OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF PEOPLE OF CAO IN
THE US. BY STATE. ...................................................................... 57

vi

APPENDIX 10. US. BEAN IMPORTS FROM CA, 1992-2003. ............................. 58
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 59

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. US. Population of Latinos and people of CAD, 1990, 2000 and 2001 ............ 9
Table 2. US. population of CA0, by states with the highest concentration Of

people of CA0. 2000 .................................................................... 11
Table 3. Populations of people of CAD in selected U.S. locations .......................... 12

Table 4. Value of CA0 bean shipped to the principal U.S, ports of entry, 2002-2003....14
Table 5. Average prices per pound of different market classes/types of dry bagged

beans found in Hispanic groceries in Los Angeles, San Francisco,

Chicago, Miami and DC ................................................................ 25

Table 6. Average prices per pound of CA0 red beans sold in groceries in
LOS Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami and DC25

Table 7. Frequency and percentage of people of CAO who bought
bagged beans, by country of origin .................................................... 26

Table 8. Frequency and percentage of people of CA0 who bought
canned beans, by country of origin .................................................... 26

Table 9. Average pounds of beans consumed per week per household,
by country of origin and type of beans ................................................ 28

Table 10. Frequency and percentage of answers to question regarding
preferences when buying small red beans ............................................ 29

Table 11. Frequency and percentage of answers to question regarding
preferences within origin of red beans ............................................... 29

Table 12. Estimation of the potential gap between bean consumption of people

of CA0 in the US. and US. bean imports from CA, 2003 ....................... 32
Appendix Table
Table 1.1 Population of Hispanic origins in Census tract 54.02,
Miami-Dade County, Florida ........................................................ 41
Table 10.1 US. bean imports from CA by market class in million dollars,
1992-2003 .............................................................................. 58
Table 10.2. US. bean imports from CA by country in metric tons, 1992-2003 ............ 58

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Value of US. beans imports from CA and exports to CA

1992-2003 .............................................................................. 13
Figure. 2. Value of US. beans imports from and exports to El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, 1992-2003 ................................ 15
Figure 3. Value of US. bean imports from CA by market class, 1992-2003 ............. 17
Figure 4. US. imports of small red and black beans from CA, by country,
1992-2003 .............................................................................. 18
Figure 5. U.S.-CAO beans subsector participants ............................................. 20
Figure 1.1. People of CAD in Miami-Dade County, Florida, by tract ..................... 44

ix

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Hispanicl households in the US. represent an important market for food products.
According to the Food Marketing Institute (FMI), households of Hispanic origin spend an
average of $117 per week on groceries, compared to the average US. household which
spends $87 per week. Hispanics visit grocery stores an average of 4.7 times a week,
compared to 2.2 times for the average American and 85% of the food eaten at home by
Hispanic households is Hispanic food (FMI, 2002). Furthermore, in 2001 the Hispanic
buying power in the US. was approximately $452 billion, which is estimated to increase
to $653 billion by 2003 and to $1,014.2 billion by 2008. This growth in buying power is
projected to be relatively greater than for any other ethnic group (Humphreys, 2003).
Beans are widely consumed by both Hispanic and non-Hispanic households.
According to the 1994-96 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals, on any
given day, nearly 14% of Americans consume at least one meal containing cooked beans-
-the majority of which are prepared at consumers’ homes. However, Hispanics consume
proportionally more cooked beans than any other ethnic group (Lucier, et.al, 2000).
While Hispanics accounted for more than 12% of the US. population in 2000, in 1998

they accounted for 33% of bean consumption (USDA, 1998).

 

' “Hispanics or Latinos are those people who classified themselves in one of the specific Spanish,
Hispanic, or Latino categories listed on the Census 2000 questionnaire (i.e., "Mexican, Mexican American,
Chicano," "Puerto Rican", or "Cuban"), as well as those who indicate that they are "other
Spanish/Hispanic/Latino." Persons who indicated that they are "other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino" include
those whose origins are from Spain, the Spanish-speaking countries of Central or South America, the
Dominican Republic or people identifying themselves generally as Spanish, Spanish-American, Hispanic,
Hispano, Latino, and so on. Origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of
birth of the person or the person's parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States. People who
identify their origin as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino may be of any race.” (U .8. Census Bureau, 2000).

During the past decade, the Hispanic population increased rapidly--from 22.3
million in 1990 to 35.3 million in 2000. Furthermore, this rate of increase (57.9 %) was
greater than the increase in the White non-Hispanic, African American, Asian and Native
American groups. In 2002, Hispanics became the second largest population group in the
US. by race or origin (US. Census Bureau, 2000). At the end of 2001, the US. Census
Bureau estimated that around 10% of the US. Hispanic population (2 million people)
was of Salvadoran, Guatemalan, Honduran or Nicaraguan origin.

Consumers of Central American origin (CAO) prefer beans with specific
characteristics of taste, color and cooking time. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there is
a growing market in the US. for beans from Central America (CA)—primarily in cities
with a high population of people of CA0. For example, an analysis of Hispanic market
trends reported that 69% of the US. Hispanic population say that they are more Hispanic
than American (Cheskin Group, 2002). This attitude, which illustrates how much
Hispanics embrace their heritage and identity, may explain why many Hispanics prefer to
consume products that come from their country of origin. Also, a recent survey of 203
households of Salvadoran origin living in Houston and Los Angeles reported that, in a
typical week, 89% of these households consumed about three pounds of red beans.
Furthermore, 59% of the surveyed households reported that they would consume up to
3.6 pounds of Salvadoran red beans, if they were available for purchase (Batres-Marquez,
Jensen, and Brester, 2001).

Finally, in 2003, the Salvadoran government estimated that the potential market

for Salvadoran beans in the US. is around $4.8 million (Ministerio de Economia de El

Salvador, 2003). However, this figure was based on a Salvadoran population estimate
that was significantly higher than the number reported in the 2000 US. Census.
Currently, no data are available to adequately document opportunities to expand
exports of beans and bean products from CA to the US. To asses the potential market
opportunity, it is first necessary to determine if US. consumers of CA0 have a strong
preference for bean products from their home country and if they are willing to pay a
premium price for these products. Also, there is a need to assess the potential to supply
the quantities needed, including the constraints that limit exports and the interventions
required to relax these constraints.
Trade liberalization will create new opportunities and risks to the beans sub-sector in
CA. However, globalization and diversification of consumers’ preferences in the US.

may also create new market opportunities for CAD bean farmers and traders.

1.2 Objectives

The general objectives of this study are to assess the market for dry beans2 from
CA in US. Hispanic markets and identify constraints that need to be relaxed to increase
participation in this market. Because El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua
have the greatest potential to export to the US. and these countries account for the largest

number of people of CA0 in the US, this study focuses on these four countries.

 

2 Dry beans includes all Phaseolus species (P. vulgaris L., common bean; P. lunatus L, lima beans; _P_.
acutifolius A. Gray. tepary beans; P. mungo L., mung beans/green gram: P. coccineus, scarlet runner bean),
species of Vigna (V. unguiculata L; cowpea), Cicer arietinum (chickpea/garbanzo) and Cyamosis
tetragonolobus (gaur). However, in this study, the terms dry beans/beans refer to common beans only,
unless otherwise noted.

Resgzrrch Obiectives

The specific objectives of this study are to:

Document the regional distribution of people of CA0 in the US.

Document the country of origin and current level of bean imports from CA
Assess CAO consumers’ preferences for beans from CA

Identify the distribution chain for beans imported from CA

Assess the constraints to and opportunities for expanding bean exports to US.
communities with populations of CA0

Propose interventions that are needed to relax these constraints

Reseafih Questions

Is there a niche market with growth potential in the US, among people of CAO, for

small red and black dry beans from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua?

Factual questions

Where is this niche market located?

Are beans consumers of CA0 willing to pay a premium price for beans coming
from their country of origin?

What is the trend in bean imports from CA?

How is the bean distribution chain organized?

What type of contacts and information are required to export beans to the US?
What are the principal constraints to expanding bean exports from CA to the

US?

1.3 Thesis Organization

Chapter Two describes the methodology used to conduct the study, including how
the data were obtained and analyzed.

Chapter Three documents the distribution and concentration of the CAO
populations in the US. by state and county/metropolitan area.

Chapter Four analyzes trends in US. bean exports to CA and CAD exports to the
US.

Chapter Five describes the CA0 bean sub-sector, focusing on the roles of the
various participants—from exporters to distributors and discusses the constraints and
opportunities facing CAO exporters who wish to target this niche market and increase
their participation in it.

Finally, Chapter Six summarizes the research findings, draws implications for
policy-makers and bean suppliers in CA, discusses the study’s limitation, and identifies

additional research that needs to be conducted.

CHAPTER TWO

METHODOLOGY
The rapid appraisal methodology was used to assess the markets for CAD common
beans in US. ethnic communities. Secondary data were analyzed to describe the
distribution and concentration of people of CAD in the US, a sample of CA0 consumers
were surveyed to assess their bean consumption preferences, and key informant
interviews were conducted with bean market participants in several cities to better

understand the Hispanic food market in ethnic communities in the US.

2.1 The Geographical Concentration of Hispanic Populations in the US.

Data from the 2000 Census were analyzed to identify the states and cities with the
highest concentration of people of CA0. After identifying these states, counties within
these states were selected using the same criteria. Then, cities within these counties were
selected and tracked, using data from the same source. Census tracts3 are very Specific,
which makes it possible to identify streets and neighborhoods within cities with the
highest concentration of people of CAD and then visit these areas to collect data. Also,
GIS software was used to map the tracts and streets within the selected cities with the
highest concentration of each CAO group. During fieldwork, these maps were used to
identify and walk around the areas where Hispanic groceries were located. See Appendix
1 for an example of the application of this methodology. Although data obtained from
Central American embassies and consulates indicated that the CA0 population in the

US. is much larger than the US. Census estimate, these numbers were based on general

 

3 A short definition of Tract is “a small, relatively permanent statistical subdivision of a county delineated
by a local committee of census data users for the purpose of presenting data“(U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).
These tracts contain streets in an approximately average area of 1 square mile, but the actual area may vary.

estimates from the embassies and consulates and they did not identify the distribution of
people of CA0 by streets or tracks within the US. cities. Therefore, US. Census data
were used for this analysis since it could be used to the spatial distribution of the CA0
populations.

The Embassy and/or Consulate of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and
Nicaragua were also visited to gather information about official programs to promote
exports and to obtain contact information for traders. In some cases, these visits also
helped to provide a general idea regarding the Hispanic bean market and the spatial

distributions of people of CAD in the US.

2.2 Bean trade between Central American countries and the US.
Secondary data (USA Trade on-line and ERS/USDA databases) were analyzed to
document recent trends in US. imports and exports of selected market classes (red and

black) of beans from and to El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

2.3 Hispanic grocers and consumers preferences
2.3.1 Hispanic grocery stores

In the selected cities, the neighborhoods with the highest concentration of people
of CAO were visited to locate Hispanic grocery stores with a high ratio of CAD
consumers. At the 30 grocery stores visited, data were collected regarding the market
classes of beans sold, the prices of black and small red beans, brands that targeted

Hispanic consumers, the origin of these beans, and the names of the firms that supplied

these brands to the groceries. In selected cases, information on consumers’ preferences

was also collected through informal talks with the grocery’s manager or owner.

2.3.2 Consumers of CA0
During the research trips, interviews were conducted with a sample4 of CA0
consumers buying beans at Hispanic grocery stores or visiting Central American
consulates in the US. (N= 116) and staff of the Central Americans consulates visited
=4) in order to obtain information about consumers’ bean preferences and their general
household characteristics. The consumer surveys were conducted at the Central
American organization “Casa Romero” in Chicago, Hispanic grocery stores in LOS
Angeles, the Guatemalan and Salvadorian Consulate in Washington, DC, the
Nicaraguan Consulate in Miami and San Francisco, and the Honduran Consulate in

Miami. See Appendix 3 for the questionnaire used in the consumer survey.

2.4 Bean Distribution chain

The interviews with Embassy staff and information obtained at the grocery stores
provided the names of CAD beans distributors/importers in the US, who were later
contacted by phone, e-mail, or a personal visit. In addition, the researcher attended the
international food fair, “Expo-Comida Latina”, which was held in Los Angeles
(November 16-18, 2003). This visit allowed the researcher to interview distributors and
importers and to collect information to describe the subsector for the Hispanic bean

market. See Appendix 2 for the questionnaire used in this survey.

 

’ The sample of respondents was selected as follows: I) consumers at the groceries and Consulates—
shOppers were selected at random; and 2) staff of Central American Consulates—a representative of each
consulate/embassy was interviewed.

CHAPTER THREE
THE GEOGRAPHICAL CONCENTRATION OF CENTRAL AMERICANS IN
THE US.

According to 2000 US. Census data, over the last decade, the Hispanic population in
the US. increased by 58% (from 22.4 million in 1990 to 35.3 million in 2000), compared
with an increase of only 13.2% for the total US. population (Table 1). During the same
period, the CAO population in the US. increased by 27.4%. However, a 2001

Supplemental Census Survey conducted in 2001 estimated the CAO population to be

37.9% greater than the number reported in the 2000 Census.

Table 1. US. Population of Hispanics and people of CA0, 1990, 2000 and 2001.

 

 

2000 Census Data Estimate
Survey
Share 1“ Change:
Population 2000 of 1990 to
Group 1990 2000 People of 2000 (%) 2001
CAO (%)
Total U.S. 248,709,873 281,421,906 N/A 13.2% 277,017,622
Non-Hispanic 226,809,784 246.1 16,088 N/A 8.5% 240,816,841
Hispanica 22,354,059 35,305,818 N/A 58.0% 36,200,781
Central
American: 1,323,830 1,686,937 100% 27.4% 2,325,600
Costa Rican N/A 68,588 4.1% N/A 89,842
Guatemalan 268,779 372,487 22.1% 38.6% 518,233
Honduran 131,066 217,569 12.9% 66.0% 307,346
Nicaraguan 202,658 177,684 10.5% -12.3% 268,961
Panamanian 92,013 91,723 5.4% -0.3% 106,909
Salvadoran 565,081 655,165 38.8% 15.9% 967,148
Otherb 64,233 103,721 6.1% 61.5% 67,161

 

a People who declared themselves as Hispanics in the Census 2000 or in the 2001

 

Estimate Survey.

b ”Other” represent the number of people who declared themselves as being of CAO, but
did not declared themselves as being from any specific country of origin.

N/A indicated not applicable or data not available.

Source: US. Census, 1990 and 2000; US. Census Estimate Survey, 2001

Among people of CA0, Salvadorans are by far the largest group, accounting for
approximately 39% of the total; followed by Guatemalans, (22%), Hondurans (13%),
Nicaraguans (11 %), Panamanians (5%), and Costa Ricans (4%). As mentioned before,
the US. Census Bureau reported fewer people of CA0 origin than the number estimated
by the Central American embassies in the U.S.. For example, the Salvadoran government
estimated that approximately 2.2 million Salvadorans lived in the US. in 2002, while the
US. Census Bureau’s 2001 estimate was around one million. However, the Salvadoran
govemment’s estimate is based on data provided by the Salvadoran consulates in
different cities—which appear to be overestimates. For example, the Salvadoran
Consulate in San Francisco estimated that 450,000 Salvadorans, out of a total of 1.3
million Hispanics, lived in the San Francisco area (they define San Francisco as the
eleven counties that form San Francisco, Ministerio de Economia de El Salvador 2003).
However, the US. Census (2000) estimated that the population of people of Salvadoran
origin (which by definition tends to be higher than the population of just Salvadorans) in
the “Bay Area” (the nine Bay Area counties in the San Francisco area) was less than
50,000, out of a total of 1.3 million.

According to the 2000 Census, about one-half of all Hispanics lived in only two
states--California and Texas. However, the distribution of people of CA0 is slightly
different. While 14 states accounted for almost 90%, California, Florida and New York

accounted for 56% of the CA0 population (Table 2).

10

Table 2. US. population of CA0, by states with the highest concentration of people of

 

 

 

 

 

CAO. 2000.
Population Guatemalans Hondurans Nicara uans Salvadorans
State of CANs Total ] %' Total | %" Total %’I Total 1 %'

California 576,330 143,500 39.1% 30,372 14.1% 51,336 29.0% 272,999 41.8%
Florida 202,772 28,650 7.8% 41,229 19.1% 79,559 44.9% 20,701 3.2%
New York 181,875 29,074 7.9% 35,135 16.3% 8,033 4.5% 72,713 1 1.1%
Texas 146,723 18,539 5.0% 24,179 11.2% 7,487 4.2% 79,204 12.1%
New Jersey 80,497 16,992 4.6% 15,431 7.1% 4,384 2.5% 25,230 3.9%
Virginia 73,140 10,000 2.7% 7,819 3.6% 3,191 1.8% 43,653 6.7%
Maryland 56,135 8,304 2.3% 4,067 1.9% 3,440 1.9% 34,433 5.3%
Illinois 39,377 19,790 5 .4% 5,992 2.8% 1,500 0.8% 7,085 1.1%
Massachusetts 38,317 11,437 3.1% 5,125 2.4% 697 0.4% 15,900 2.4%
Georgia 31,813 10,718 2.9% 5,158 2.4% 1,394 0.8% 8,497 1.3%
North Carolina 30,783 5,966 1.6% 8,321 3.9% 1,449 0.8% 8,679 1.3%
Nevada 18,747 4,106 1.1% 1,316 0.6% 1,583 0.9% 9,386 1.4%
Louisiana 17,327 2,093 0.6% 8,792 4.1% 2,804 1.6% 1,127 0.2%
District of

Columbia 15,803 1,350 0.4% 853 0.4% 594 0.3% 1 1,741 1.8%
Total 14 states 1,509,639 310,519 84.5% 193,789 89.8% 167,451 94.6% 611,348 93.7%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See Appendix 4 for data for all states.

‘3 Percentage of total people of specific origin who lives in the US (US. Census, 2000).

 

Among US. cities, the largest number of Guatemalans (65,922) and Salvadorians
(126,197) lived in Los Angeles; the largest number of Hondurans (25,600) lived in New
York; and the largest number of Nicaraguans (54,826) lived in Miami-Hialeah5 (Table 3).
Since the number of Costa Ricans and Panamanians who live in the US. is relatively
small, compared to other CAO populations (see Table 1), Costa Ricans and Panamanians
are not considered in this study. Also, their beans exports to the US. are small, compared

to the other CAO exports.

 

5 Table 3 presents “Miami-Hialeah” and “Washington, D.C., Arlington, Virginia, and Alexandria City,
Virginia” as single locations, due to their geographical proximity.

ll

Table 3. Populations of people of CA0 in selected U.S. locations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CANs Guatemalans Hondurans Nicaraguans Salvadorans

Place Total %* Total %* Total %* Total %"‘ Total %*
Los Angeles 238,191 6.45% 65,922 1.78% 12,030 0.33% 8,792 0.24% 126,197 3.42%
New York 99,099 1.24% 15,212 0.19% 25,600 0.32% 6,451 0.08% 24,516 0.31%
Houston 60,642 3.10% 7,220 0.37% 10,284 0.53% 2,196 0.1 1% 36,799 1.88%
Miami 54,826 9.31% 3,298 0.56% 14,71 1 2.50% 29,754 5.05% 3,245 0.55%
Washington 34,367 3.86% 3,697 0.42% 2,865 0.32% 1,315 0.15% 23,848 2.68%
San Francisco 23,367 3.01% 3,196 0.41% 934 0.12% 5,459 0.70% 10,655 1.37%
Chicago 23,339 0.81% 13,610 0.47% 3,049 0.11% 778 0.03% 3,468 0.12%
Dallas 14,972 1.26% 1,950 0.16% 2,637 0.22% 407 0.03% 8,582 0.72%

 

 

* Percentage of total population in specific place. Source: 2000 US. Census

The concentration of people of CA0 varies greatly within US. locations. For
example, in Washington, D.C.’s Census Tract 25.02 (which corresponds to an area of
approximately 0.5 squared miles), almost 20% of the people are of CA0 (see Appendix
5) and in Tract 28.02, about 28% of the people living there are of CAD. These data
confirms the high concentration of people of CA0 in particular zones in DC. Since LOS
Angeles, Miami, and Washington, DC. had the highest percentage of Guatemalans,
Hondurans, Nicaraguans, and Salvadorans (see Table 3), those cities were selected for
fieldwork in order to obtain information about the potential market for beans from those
countries. In addition, San Francisco was selected due to its high concentration of people
of CA0 in specific census tracts and because it has the highest concentration of
Nicaraguans, except for Miami. Finally, Chicago was selected, due to its proximity to

Michigan State University and its large number of Guatemalans and Hondurans.

l2

CHAPTER FOUR
U.S. BEAN EXPORTS TO CENTRAL AMERICA AND IMPORTS FROM

CENTRAL AMERICA

4.1 Total Dry Bean Exports and Imports6

While U.S. bean exports to CA have fluctuated greatly from year-to-year7, over
the past four years the US. has imported approximately the same value of beans from CA
as the US. has exported to CA (Figure 1). However, since 1994, US. imports from CA

have increased steadily.

 

Four Central American countries

 

 

14
12
10

 

 

 

 

Million dollars

 

mnmm

 

 

 

 

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

 

 

 

Figure 1. Value of US. beans imports from CA and exports to CA, 1992-2003.
Source: US. Trade on-line.

 

6 When beans are imported or exported, each shipment is assigned a HS commodity code at the US. port.
While bean exports are classified correctly (i.e., the market class is specified on the bill of lading), key
informants reported that bean imports are often mislabeled because customs agents are unfamiliar with
bean market classes. Thus, in this section,- the values of ‘dry beans’ correspond to imports reported under
the HS commodity codes: 071331 [Beans, Vigna Mungo (L.) Hepper Etc, Dried Shelled], 071332 [Beans,
Small Red (Adzuki), Dried Shelled, Inc Seed], 071333 [Kidney Beans & White Pea Beans, Dri Shel, Inc
Seed], and 071339 [Beans Nesoi (not otherwise classified), Dried Shelled, Including Seed]. While this
convention may slightly overestimate the value of exports, it accurately reflects the value of imports since
Central American countries only produce/export common beans (P. vulgaris L.).

7 The region’s bean imports were especially large in years when production fell sharply due to hurricanes
and drought.

13

Among Central American countries, El Salvador accounts for almost all US. bean
imports from the region—approximately 75% of the total imports value in the 1992-2003
period. Furthermore, since 1994 US. bean imports (dollar value) from El Salvador have
greatly exceeded US. exports (Figure 2). In contrast, during the past decade, the US.
has exported far more beans (dollar value) than it has imported from Guatemala,
Honduras, and Nicaragua (Figure 2). While U.S. bean imports from Guatemala and
Honduras have remained minimal and relatively steady in recent years, imports from
Nicaragua have increases steadily since 2001. It is necessary to note that in 1998 and
1999 in Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua, Hurricane Mitch devastated a large share
of these countries’ agricultural production area. In these years, a substantial share of the
beans exported from the US. was provided as emergency aid.

Four ports—Miami, Los Angeles, New York, and Houston—accounted for
around 94% of total US imports from CA in 2002 and 2003 (Table 4). However, Miami
was, by far, the most important port of entry for CAO beans, receiving over 40% of total

US bean imports from CA.

Table 4. Value of CA0 bean shipped to the principal U.S. ports of entry, 2002-2003.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jan-Dec 2002 Jan-Dec 2003

Port of entry Total value Total value

US$ % of Total US$ % of Total
Los Angeles 546,031 15% 672,062 16% »
Miami 1,596,407 44% 1,755,866 42%
New York 683,646 19% 678,936 16%
Houston 705,873 19% 847,545 20%
Other ports 97,284 3% 201,896 5%

 

 

Source: US. Trade on-line.

14

25-28 own; .m.D ”ooBom
.moom-Nao_ Samoa”: Z can .maBunom £38895 .BEZBm _m 8 3898 28 Bow 8.895 :89 .m.D mo 33> .N 239m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

meow meow Son 88 89 82 83 82 32 32 82 «m9 meow NOON room 80m mm? 89 39 camp mm? 39 89 Nome
. .. - o.—
m -2 m
m a m
m - 2. m
H . H
m - o m a
l - 0.0
0.5
38qu m: lT
2.9.8.2 959; mg IT 23:28:
meow moon Son 8889. 39. 39. 89 89 39 82 «mar meow meow room 88 mam? 82 39 89 $3 39 mama Nam—
m m
on m.
U U
P P
w W
a. q
a 9
€on w: I
atone. m: IT 22:82.0 Long—am _m

 

 

 

 

15

4.2 Small Red bean and Black Bean Exports

CAN countries grow and export two market classes of beans--small reds and
blacks (Martinez, 2003). However, as noted previously, beans are often misclassified
(e. g., classified as Mungo, Vigna, or Nesoi, i.e., classified as beans, but not assigned to a
specific market class) at the port of entry. As shown in Figure 3, beans that were
classified neither as black nor as red beans accounted for about 35% of the 4,745 MT of
beans imports from CA in 2003. After conversations with experts in CA, it was decided
to only include data for beans explicitly classified as reds or blacks in the analysis
presented in this section, which focuses on exports of red and black beans from CA.
Consequently, although the data reported in this section underestimates total red and
black bean exports, these data are indicative of the relative importance of each market
class, as a share of CA’S total bean exports.

Small reds have accounted for almost all of the region’s bean exports (Figure 3
and Appendix 10) during the past decade, almost all of which have been exported by El
Salvador8 (Figure 4). However, since 2001 Nicaragua has increased its exports to
become the second most important player in this market (38% market share in 2003,

Figure 4).

 

8 Key informants reported that a substantial share of El Salvador’s red bean exports are actually imported
fi'om Nicaragua and Honduras and then exported fi'om El Salvador to the U.S..

16

 

 

C! Other
I Black
Small red

US beans imports from 4 countries

 

 

 

 

s» .A
U! 3 U!
I
1

Million dollar:

   

_- N
amnmu
JIII
l
1

2L

  
 

 

.0
or

o " . . '7 . ‘ . ." " » t- ,1. ' ,r
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

 

 

 

Figure 3. Value of US. bean imports from CA, by market class, 1992-2003.
Source: US. Trade on-line.

While Central American countries tend to export a single market class (small
reds), all countries have also exported small quantities of black beans—especially El
Salvador in 2003 (Figure 4). In contrast, Honduras and Nicaragua have almost
exclusively exported red beans. While Guatemala was a major exporter of black beans to
the US. in the mid-19908, since 1997 it has only exported small quantities of black beans
to the US9 (Figure 4).

Since the mid—19905, red bean exports from CA to the US. have increased
steadily, rising from about 500 metric tons (MT) in 1996 to about 3,000 MT in 2003
(Figure 4). In contrast, black bean exports have remained low throughout the period,
declining from a high of about 300 MT in 1995 to less that 50 MT from 1977-2002, and

then rising to 200 MT in 2003 (see Appendix 10 for yearly data).

 

9 Since Guatemala primarily produces black beans, the apparent growth in red bean exports may be due to
the misclassification of Guatemala’s bean exports. However, Guatemala’s total exports have been
extremely small—only 150,000 kg in 2002.

 

 

 

 

 

Small red beans I El salvador
CI Honduras
3500 121 Guatemala
3000 6 Nicaragua
2500 -——* '* T W
O
C
8 2000 ——— T T 'i ” ’
8
‘5 1500 ~!i* - , J
E
1000 -—#* 7
500 +_———~er 7 .J..'g f
0 v. ,1,.lf:r:‘:,l 1': '. _'_,: ' ' l

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

 

 

I El Salvador
El Honduras
t'a'l Guatemala
El Nicaragua

Black beans

 

350

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Metric tons

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. US. imports of small red and black beans from CA, by country, 1992-2003.
Source: US. Trade on-line.

18

However, total bean exports (small reds plus blacks) to the US. still account for
only a small share of CA’s bean production. For example, in the period 1999-2001, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua produced an estimated average of
370,490 MT of beans per year--around 249,000 MT of small red beans and around
138,000 MT of black beans (Martinez, 2003). Thus, only about 1% of the region’s small
red and 0.1 % of the region’s black bean production was exported to the US. in that
period. Assuming yields of 0.76 MT/ha, exports were equivalent to less than 1% of the

bean area.

19

CHAPTER FIVE

CENTRAL AMERICAN BEANS IN THE US SUBSECTOR

5.1 Subsector Participants

A commodity subsector consists of the vertical array of activities associated with
the production and marketing of a commodity. Participants associated with the U.S.-
CAO bean subsector include six groups"): 1) CAO growers firms, 2) CAO
wholesalers/exporters, 3) US. importers, 4) US. distributors/wholesalers, 5) US.

Hispanic grocery stores/supermarkets, and 6) US. Hispanic consumers (Figure 5).

Functions Participants

 

 

Production ISmall, medium-scale rowers L CA growers firms I

\*
Exports IU.S. Importin firms Wholesalers CA rowers firms]

Imports I US. Importin firms

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Production firms I

 

  

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Distribution/ I
Wholesaling U.S. Importin firms Distributors
Retailing I Ethnic grocery stores I LSupermarkets I

 

 

Central Americans in the US.

 

I Final Markets ]

Figure 5. U.S.-CAO beans subsector participants

 

'° The overviews reported for these sections are based on information provided by key informants. See
Appendix 6 for a list of key informant, by type.

20

5.1.1 CAO growers firms

A limited number of large-scale growers produce beans using the recommended
bean production technologies. Often, these growers have informal contracts with
Wholesalers, who ask them to produce specific quantities of specific bean varieties. A
few of these growers, who have the required human, physical, financial, and
organizational capital, trade directly with US. Importers. Some large-scale growers
work jointly with Importers or have arrangements with firms in the US. to import their
beans. In addition, while some of these firms distribute their own products in the US,
others use US. distributors to reach Hispanic markets. For example, Arrocera San
Francisco (ASF), based in El Salvador, produces beans, buys beans from other growers,
and buys beans from CAO wholesale markets; bag their beans; and export them to US.
The owners of this firm have a subsidiary in New York (All Foods Inc.), which imports
beans from El Salvador and sells them to distributors in the US. While it initially
targeted markets on the US. East Coast, All Foods Inc. is now expanding its operation to

the southern and western areas.

5.1.2 CAO wholesalers/exporters
Wholesaler/exporters buy beans from farmers and from other middlemen. Often,
they specify quality characteristics such as small reds that are light colored (e.g., silk red

beans). These firms export beans directly to US. importers.

21

5.1.3 U.S. importers
Most of these firms, which are owned by people of CA0, import beans in bulk
(usually in 100 lb bags) or import beans that are already bagged for retail sales (e.g., 1
lb). Importers are located in or near the US. cities with the highest population of CA0,
particularly Los Angeles, Miami, Houston, and New York. As noted above, Importers
source their beans from CAO firms that grow beans and/or buy beans from Wholesalers
in the region. These beans are usually shipped to the US. by exporters—typically in
containers with other food products. These Importers often have a representative in CA,
who is associated with a CA-based firm or who is simply a relativeH who lives there.
The transport cost for shipping one container is approximately $US 2,500-3,000. In many
cases, importers also distribute the beans they import once they arrive to the US.
Fieldwork identified approximately 30 enterprises that imported beans from CA--
mostly small firms which were owned by people of CA0. The majority of these firms
were located in California (approximately 40%); especially the firms owned by
Salvadorans (N=10) and Guatemalans (N=2). However, the fieldwork also identified
firms in Houston (N=3), Washington (N=5), New York (N=3), Miami (N=3), and

Chicago (N=2) that also imported beans—especially from El Salvador.

5.1.4 U.S. distributors/wholesalers
Distributors, who buy beans from US. Importers, may receive the beans already
bagged from the Importers or bag the product themselves and market it to grocery stores

and supermarkets. In addition to beans, these distributors typically sell many different

 

” Some importers reported that purchasing beans through a relative insures that the shipped beans will
meet the importer’s quality standards.

22

Hispanic products. Distributors are very knowledgeable of the Hispanic food market and

some of them have in depth knowledge of the CA0 ethnic market in the U.S..

5.1.5 US. Hispanic grocery stores/supermarkets.

While most Hispanic groceries/supermarkets in the US. target the general
Hispanic population—especially ethnic Mexicans—stores in the communities visited
targeted people of CA0. These groceries sold a great diversity of products of CA0. In
these stores, Spanish was the primary language spoken and people who worked in these
places were of Hispanic origin. While Hispanics owned many of these stores, some were
owned by people of Asian/Korean origin (4 of the 30 shops visited), especially in Los
Angeles. The Hispanic grocery stores were located in areas with a high concentration of
people of CA0, and were usually close to each other and relatively small, compared to
the supermarkets in the area.

People of CA0 shopped in these stores because these groceries sold many of the
products they had previously used in their country of origin. However, some of the
Hispanic groceries had become supermarkets, which had more shelf space and sold a
greater diversity of products than the typical Hispanic grocery (i.e. 75 to 200 m2)—-such as
Liborios Markets, a Hispanic supermarket chain in Los Angeles (around 450 m2). In
addition, non-Hispanic supermarkets--which were located in the Latin areas visited--also
sold beans imported from CA.

In the five selected cities, 30 Hispanic grocery stores-~10cated in the Census tracts
with the highest concentration of people of CAO--were visited and information about

availability and prices of more than 30 brands of beans that target the CA0 market were

23

collected. The majority of the 26 small red bean presentations that were labeled as CAO
beans were labeled as Salvadoran (N=18, 69%), although some were labeled as
Nicaraguan (N=5, 19%), two as Honduran (8%), and one was labeled as CAO beans but
without a specific country of origin”. Similarly, the majority of the black beans were
labeled as coming from El Salvador—despite the fact that El Salvador is not a major
black beans producer.

Data collected during visits to Hispanic groceries indicated that the average prices
per pound varied greatly by market class/type of bean (i.e., black beans, small red beans,
and red silk beans). Table 5 differentiates between CAO and Non-CAO beans (i.e.,
imported vs. domestically produced). On average, red silk beansl3 were priced about
50% higher ($1.60/lb) than other types of red beans (i.e., CAO and Non-CAO beans
together were priced at an average of $1.07/lb) and CAD small red beans were priced at
an average of about 50% higher ($1.41/1b) than Non-CAO beans ($0.91/1b). Black beans
from CA were priced at around 60% higher ($1.46/1b) than Non-CAO blacks ($0.90/1b).
These data clearly indicate that consumers who shop in these groceries are willing to pay

a premium price for beans from CA.

 

'2 The beans collected from the groceries were compared to sample of beans that had been collected in
Central America by Michigan State University researchers. Based on this comparison, some of the beans
labeled as originating in Central America did not seem to actually be Central American beans.

'3 Red silk beans (Frijoles Rojos de Seda) are a sub-market class of small red bean (i.e., traditional

varieties/landraces). Beans of this sub-market class are generally preferred by Central American consumers
and people of CAD in the US.

24

Table 5. Average prices per pound of different market classes/types of dry bagged beans
found in Hispanic groceries in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami and DC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Standard

Type of beans observations Mean Deviation Max Min
Black CA0 11 1.46 0.47 2.07 0.70
Black Non-CAO 36 0.90 0.25 1.99 0.50
Total Black beans 47 1.03 0.39 2.07 0.50
Red CA0 10 1.41 0.36 1.88 0.79
Red Non-CAO 24 0.91 0.10 1.09 0.71
Total red beans 36 1.07 0.31 1.88 0.71
Red silk beans 51 1.60 0.27 2.15 0.79
Total Observations 134

 

 

Although the sample size was very small, the average prices of imported small

red beans (red and red silk) were similar, regardless of their country of origin (Table 6).

Table 6. Average prices per pound of CA0 red beans sold in groceries in Los Angeles,

San Francisco

, Chicago, Miami and DC.

 

 

 

Labeled as: Small red beans Red silk beans Total

N Mean N Mean N Mean
Salvadoran 7 1.37 38 1.60 45 1.56
Nicaraguan 1 1.33 11 1.61 12 1.58
Honduran 1 1.59 1 1.59 2 1.59

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.1.6 U.S. Hispanic consumers.

Consumers were surveyed mainly in Chicago (N=16), Miami (N=41), and Washington,

DC. (N=45), although a few surveys were also conducted in San Francisco (N=3) and

Los Angeles (N=9). A total of 114 people of CA0 were surveyed regarding their bean

consumption preferences. About 88% of the respondents reported that they bought dry

beans, ranging from 82% of the Nicaraguans to 92% of the Salvadorians and

25

Guatemalans (Table 7). For the total sample of respondents, average household size
varied among groups--ranging from 5.28 individuals for Guatemalan households to 4.11
for Salvadorian, 3.87 for Honduran, and 3.77 for Nicaraguan households. Bagged beans
consumption per household averaged 1.95 lbs per week, compared to 2.28 lbs per week
for the households (88%) who reported consuming bagged beans. Salvadorians
consumed the most bagged beans, averaging 1.99 lb/week, followed by Nicaraguans

(1.47 lb/wk), Guatemalans (1.09 lbs/wk), and Hondurans (0.61 lbs/wk) (Table 9).

Table 7. Frequency and percentage of people of CA0 who bought bagged beans, by
country of origin.

 

 

 

 

 

Do you buy bagged beans? Total
Country of origin No Yes
of respondents
N Percent N Percent N
El Salvador 3 8.1% 34 91.9% 37
Guatemala 2 8.3% 22 91 .7% 24
Nicaragua 6 18.2% 27 81.8% 33
Honduras 3 15.0% 17 85.0% 20
Total 14 12.3% 100 87.7% 114

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fewer than one-half the people surveyed said they bought canned beans. Of those
who bought canned beans—ranging from 31% of the Salvadorians to 71% of the
Guatemalans--9l% said that they bought canned beans because it is easier and faster to

prepare them (Table 8).

26

Table 8. Frequency and percentage of people of CA0 who bought canned beans, by
country of origin.

 

 

 

 

 

Does your household buy canned beans? Total
Country of origin of No Yes
respondents
N Percent N Percent N
El Salvador 22 68.8% 10 31.3% 32
Guatemala 6 28.6% 15 71.4% 21
Nicaragua 21 63.6% 12 36.4% 33
Honduras 6 33.3% 12 66.7% 18
Total 55 52.9% 49 47.1% 104

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While less than one-half of CA0 consumers (45%) reported that they bought
beans from their own country, almost two-thirds (62%) bought beans from either their
country, or another country in CA. Salvadorans mainly consumed red silk (1.26 lb/wk)
and reds (0.67 lbs/wk) beans from El Salvador. Nicaraguans consumed about an equal
amount of beans from Nicaragua (0.77 lb/wk of reds, 0.9 lb/wk of blacks), another
Central American country (0.61 lb/wk of reds), and the U.S. (0.26 lb/wk of reds, 0.16
lb/wk of blacks, 024 lb/wk of others). While Hondurans consumed 0.38 lb/wk of beans
from Honduras (0.36 lbs/wk Of reds, 0.02 lb/wk of backs), they consumed 0.25 lb/wk of
red beans from another Central American country, and 0.65 lb/wk from the U.S. (0.30
lb/wk of reds, 0.25 lb/wk of blacks, 0.10 lb/wk of others). Guatemalans consumed the
smallest amount of beans from their country of origin (0.21 1b/wk of blacks) and the
largest amount of beans from the U.S. (0.04 lbs/wk of reds, 0.60 lb/wk of blacks,
0.051b/wk of others). This may be due to Guatemalan’s preference for black beans and

the availability of black beans of U.S. origin, which are similar to blacks from CA.

27

dosage €853 ”Om

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28

 

moo oco mmo S o o omo $0 o m: Re a. _ Ah.— Dm VEHZ
:o wmo 30 So o 2o mmo o mvo coo omo mm; :82 .83.
5. o mm o om o o o o mm o o o no O on o and Ow oNuZ
Ed wmd cmd o o o mmd o c mod omd mm; :32 22.6.5:
co; 93 Gd 0 o o me; 0 mm o o mm; mm." Gm mmuZ
vwd c _ .o cad o o o Gd o mod o Pd v ~ .m 882 new: .33 Z
3 o 3.0 omd mm o o 0: 32¢ o o 36 o no; Gm va2
mod $6 vod cod 0 mod Ed o o Ed o cod :32 2:58.30
Ed 36 de o o mod o o mm: mmd o: 3; Om nmuz
86 mod 36 o o 56 o o 3.— mod nod 3.32am
EN :82 _H

550 x85 BM 550 cam x85 com 550 Sam xofim BM .33.

com com

ABS—835333: ASS—83.53033: ASE—33:23.33: Sac—Eamon no
.m.D 2: Beam <0 5 ESE—8 Deena Sear.— Ewte he 5.5.58 use» So; auto .3 5.5580

 

 

 

 

demon mo 090 new Ewto Co .3850 LE .Eonomso: com :83 com 383:8 memos mo mega owmco>< .m 033.

 

Consumers who bought small red beans were asked to identify the major reason
that they preferred small red dry beans—“color”, “origin of the beans”, or that they were
indifferent (i.e., didn’t have a preference between those two attributes). Among all
consumers, twice as many selected “origin”, as those who selected “color”. Those results

were similar when preferences were analyzed by the consumers’ specific country of

origin (Table 10).

Table 10. Frequency and percentage of answers to question regarding preferences when
buying small red beans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Principal characteristic sought when buying small red beans
Color Origin of beans Indifferent between Total
those characteristics
Country Of Count Within Count Within Within Count
origin country country Count country
% % %
El Salvador 10 33.3% 17 56.7% 3 10.0% 30
Nicaragua 4 15.4% 15 57.7% 26.9% 26
Honduras 4 44.4% 4 44.4% 1 l 1 . 1% 9
Total 18 27.7% 36 55.4% 1 1 16.9% 65

 

 

In addition, the consumers were asked if they had a preference for “beans from
their country of origin”, “beans from any other place in CA”, “beans from anywhere else
in the world”, or “no preference”. More than 80% said that they preferred beans from

their country of origin (Table 11). Those results were also similar when preferences were

analyzed by consumers’ specific country of origin.

29

Table 11. Frequency and percentage of answers to question regarding preferences within

origin of red beans.

 

 

 

 

Origin of preference when buying small red beans
Country of origin Any place in world No preference Total
Country of
origin 0f Count Within Count Within Count Within Count
respondents country country country
% % %
El Salvador 24 80.0% 0 0% 6 20.0% 30
Nicaragua 22 84.6% 0 0% 4 15.4% 26
Honduras 6 85.7% 1 14.3% 0 0% 7
Total 52 82.5% 1 1.6% 10 15 .9% 63

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.1.7 Potential U.S. Demand for beans of CAO

As shown in Tables 10 and 11, people of CA0 consider origin to be an important
characteristic when buying small red beans. The following analysis estimates the
potential U.S. demand for CAD beans, given the Census Bureau’s 2001 estimate of
people of CAD (Table 1), current consumption of CA0 beans as reported by people of
CA0 (from the survey), the current level of beans imports from CA (data obtained from
USA Trade on-line), and the preference of people of CA0 for beans from CA. As noted
before, approximately 35% of the 4,754 MTl4 of beans imported from CA in 2003 was
misclassified when entering the U.S.. Of the total beans classified as small red or black,
around 95.6% were small red and the rest were black. Thus, the following projection
assumes that for each country, 95.6% of total bean imports (4,754 MT) were small reds
and 4.4% were blacks.

As shown in Table 12, people of CA0 (2003) consumed an estimated total of

13,756 MT of small red and 5,338 MT of black beans. However, small red bean imports

 

'4 Several brands labeled as CAO beans in the grocery stores were not actually CAO beans. This may
explain why the estimate of U.S. bean imports from Central America is smaller than the consumption of
CAD beans reported by people of CAO in the survey.

30

from CA totaled only 4,545 MT and black bean imports totaled only 209 MT. Thus,
there exists a potential gap (i.e., reported consumption minus current imports) of 9,211
MT for CAO small red beans and 209 MT for black beans (Table 12)--which suggests
that that there exists a potentially large unmet demand for bean imports from CA. Given
that 82% of people of CA0 reported that they prefer small red beans from CA, at least an
additional 7,500 MT of small red beans would have to be imported to satisfy people of
CAO’S current demand for CAD small red beans. Because red and black beans from each
CA country are assumed to be close to perfect substitutes, no attempted is made to
estimate the potential demand from each Central American country. These estimates of
the potential gap between bean demand and imports are rather “conservative”, since the
Census Bureau’s estimates of the CA0 population are conservative, compared to those of

the Central American embassies.

31

.2828... 82 I <2

c.330— OOO; 85: ER: NS .3 823v .08» 8m 8283 mm 88: C. 28.2. 80.5 mason 083:8 £053 $020880:

O<O .20 $3 88: 80% 0350 <0 com 83880: 8:5 x83 8O 20:88: 8m 88:88 3— wfimesE .3 88835 _
800 OE 0:? 08 02 :25 O0 05m .2

<0 80¢ $0095 388 05 08 80» 8O 00395508 888:8 05 8038p 8800me 05 30cm 98% £5 E 8838 50.2 EC. m
.880 3:93 0283 no 3%.va 02 :95 856 Be 880 08.595 :2“ 85 mamasmme 605303 03 88 E095 _

.980» 0850 <0 :08 .20 Eons—anon m: .3 085225 00:08:88 Oofimmors omega 2: O0 Sam 05. o

.anomaon com 88ch .3 823w 888““ .«0 03:32 .0

Eonumsonumm $038 88088 2: 80¢ 0885mm 0

.manoum <0 50.“ =a 00.2 8302.2? 05 m0 mowmb>< a

08829: $23850 mac—c: .8388 50.2 05 .20 83 2C. a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mOON
.<U 80¢ 3.595 :82 .m.D O00 .m.D 05 E O<U O0 030% MO :ozaEsmCOO :82 0002509 mam 1023292 05 .20 comgafismm .N_ 053.
.. ._ . 832:
OON megs NNN._ 330 203.2 ammo ECHO new; oov imé NOO.N >023 :<
. 8:258
Admin MON om_.m 2N6 OON memé coo wmmfi owns: .86 ommO Km; vwv <2 NOO.N 502 ESP
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 Omm 5mm NOON VNO O_.O mm; K Chm OON 89282
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 mm: 3% mow; _.O BNO Ed on S: mom 9:20:02
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 mmm Swim Com :O ow; :O OO and Em 20.8800
Sag—mm
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 .2; 30 36.2 MOO 3O mod mmm :4. $0 5
.2
OE EOE .202 .28. =02 A 2 com
:85 :< gum—m =< xofim =< 8&0 0.85 :< 550 0.85 =< Sufism
.9038 06:58
E0; 9388
35%: $88
_89 .058 C<U 5.2V 335m 59: A3: 3008 um: com 88.8
20 .x. m< 130% 80¢ atom—E So» .00 80% com 803 com I: com %I: mcomcom O0 .02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M280 13:80.2 8863mm 88$ 20 coca—55:00

 

 

 

32

5.2 Dynamics in the Subsector

Most CAO beans sold in the U.S. are imported from El Salvador. The firms that
distribute these beans are usually owned by Salvadorians living in the U.S., who mainly
distribute regionally--targeting Salvadorans in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and
Houston. For example, Rio Grande’s bean brand was found in San Francisco,
Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles; and La Miguelena’s brand was found in
Washington, D.C., and Chicago. In contrast, Goya’s brand was the only one found in
every city visited. In fact, Goya had a predominant presence in all of the grocery stores
visited. In these groceries, a wide variety of Goya’s bean products were sold, including
black beans, small red beans, silk Salvadoran red beans, and beans labeled as red beans
from CA. Key informants reported that some of the beans that Salvadoran traders
imported actually came from Honduras and Nicaragua. However, some Salvadoran
traders targeted the Honduran and Nicaraguan market by mislabeling some of their
imports as Honduran or Nicaraguan beans.

In general, firms market beans to Hispanic groceries through two marketing

channels: 1) “importer-driven channels” and 2) “exporter-driven channels”.

5.2.1. Importer-driven trade

This channel consists of U.S.-based firms, mostly owned by people of CAO,
which have established a regional or interregional distribution channel in the U.S. (e.g.,
Rio Grande and Dubon & Sons). Some of these firms marketed many different food
products, targeted U.S. residents of CAO (especially the Salvadoran market), and had

representatives in CA who purchased beans for them—especially from wholesalers. In

33

addition, this group included smaller firms, which only imported beans (primarily from
Nicaragua and Honduras) for distribution via regional marketing channels, (e.g., the
Miami area). These small firms sourced beans from wholesalers or from their own

representatives (relatives) in CA, who exported the beans to them in the U.S..

5.2.2 Exporter-driven trade

This marketing channel consisted of firms in CA that had grown beans and other
products for many years, and had recently begun to export their products to the U.S..
These firms, who also bought beans from other growers and from wholesalers, mainly
exported beans to distributors in the U.S.. Some of these firms had representatives in the
U.S. who imported the beans and then sold them to distributors (e.g. Arrocera San
Francisco). Many of these firms reported that their principal constraint to increasing
exports was a lack of information regarding potential markets and the names of

distributors who would be interested in purchasing their products.

5.3. Constraints and opportunities for expanding bean exports from CA to the U.S.
5.3.1 Constraints

CAO exporters and U.S. importers identified several constraints to expanding
bean exports to the U.S..
Concerns raised lg CAO exporters included:
1) a lack of knowledge regarding reliable importers/distributors in the U.S., who
were interested in establishing a durable and continuous relationship with them,

2) difficulties associated with receiving payments for their products, and

34

3) problems in meeting importers’ volume requirements and being able to supply a

product of consistent quality at the time required.

Concerns raised by U.S. importers included:

1) the varying quality on beans imported/shipped from CA,

2) problems entering the grocery store market (especially small importers since they
are new suppliers),

3) a lack of knowledge of new markets where they could sell their beans,

4) problems related to tax payments and different regulations in Central American
countries (especially Honduras) for exporting beans to the U.S.15 , and

5) finding reliable exporters who could supply the necessary volumes and at the time

needed.

5.3.2 Opportunities

This study showed that people of CA0 prefer beans from their home country and
are willing to pay a premium price for them. While beans from CA are currently sold in
Hispanic groceries, some of the U.S. bean importers surveyed expressed the opinion that
there is a potential to increase the market for CAO beans--especially beans from
Honduras and Nicaragua. These importers also commented that if they were able to
obtain information about the potential market for CAO beans in other cities in the U.S.,

they would try to increase their volume of sales.

 

'5 Personal communication with Rafael Vasquez (a Honduran bean importer in Miami). He mentioned that
he has problems trying to import more beans from Honduras due to high taxes he needs to pay in order to
export from Honduras to the U.S. and to delays in the Honduran’s Customs Office.

35

Some of the bean distributors contacted expressed an interest in entering the CA0
ethnic food market in the U.S. However, these distributors need information regarding
both the location of CA0 communities in the U.S. and the names of CA0 exporters who
could meet their volume, quality, and consistency requirements--which vary among
distributors. However, once links are established between CAO exporters and U.S.
distributors, both parties could agree on the grades and standards required.

The potential to increase bean exports from CA is greatest via the “importer
driven” marketing channel. Increasingly, U.S. importers recognize the need to move
towards greater vertical coordination, due to an inconsistency in the quality of beans
supplied by CAO traders. Thus, U.S. importers are beginning to establish agreements
directly with large-scale farmers and firms in CA (Cabrera, 2003). In other cases,
importers are creating companies in Central American countries to export directly to the
importer. In addition, importers are creating their own distribution channels in the U.S.

to market their imported beans.

36

CHAPTER SIX
SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Summary

People of CA0 (i.e., Guatemalans, Hondurans, Nicaraguans, Salvadorians) living
in the U.S. prefer to consume beans that come from their countries of origin. They also
consume more dry beans than the average person in the U.S—while U.S. per capita
consumption averaged 7.33 lbs in 2003, (0.14 lbs of small red beans and 0.52 lbs of black
beans), this study shows that people of CA0 consumed around 24 lbs of beans, (16.7 lbs
of small red beans and 5.8 lbs of black beans). When available, people of CA0 are
willing to pay a premium price for CAO beans. People of CA0 are usually highly
concentrated in specific cities in the U.S. (e.g., Los Angeles, Miami, Washington, DC.
and San Francisco). In all of these cities, there are Hispanic grocery stores which target
the CA0 market. In these stores, Spanish is usually spoken. These stores sell a wide
variety of grocery products that people of CA0 prefer, many of which are imported from
CA.

The concentration of each CAO group varies from city-to-city. In cities with a
high concentration of a specific CAO group, it is more likely that Hispanic groceries will
sell beans from that specific country.

During the past decade, U.S. exports to CA have fluctuated greatly from year-to-
year, largely in response to production shortfalls due to adverse weather conditions; while
U.S. imports have increased steadily since 1994. The U.S.-CAO bean import trade is
dominated by Salvadorans (SALs)--almost all dry beans imported from CA were

imported from El Salvador and/or labeled as Salvadoran beans. A great variety of brands

37

of Salvadoran beans were found in the Hispanic groceries surveyed, especially in cities
with a high concentration of SALs (i.e., Washington, DC. and Los Angeles). SALs
strongly prefer beans from their home country and, in places where those beans are
available, they usually only buy SALs beans (small red beans, especially the CA0 sub-
market class known as “silk red beans”). Nicaraguans are mainly concentrated in Miami.
It was found that they also prefer dry beans from their home country. Beans labeled as
“Nicaraguans” were found in Miami, but in significantly fewer amounts than Salvadoran
beans were found in Los Angeles, Washington, and Chicago. Some Hondurans in the
U.S. are beginning to import beans from Hondurans and selling them--mainly in Miami
(Hondurans and Nicaraguans also prefer small red beans that come from their own
country). Guatemalans prefer black beans, which were sold in all of the Hispanic
groceries visited. However, very few Hispanic groceries sold black beans imported from
Guatemala, since U.S. and Mexican black beans are both very similar to those grown in
Guatemala and are less expensive. Guatemalans commented that even although they
preferred Guatemalan beans, they usually bought any dry black bean that they found
available. In addition, Guatemalans bought more canned beans than other people of
CA0 and canned beans labeled as “Guatemalan” were found during the trips to Los
Angeles and Chicago. Guatemalans preference for canned beans is due to the fact that
they primarily consume refried beans, whereas other groups of CA0 prefer to consume
cooked whole beans.

Many distributors in the U.S. target the Hispanic ethnic market. SAL distributors,
who dominate the CA0 market for Hispanic foods, mainly target SALs who are, by far,

the biggest group of people of CA0 in the U.S.. Many of these distributors were

38

interested in obtaining information about the spatial distribution of people of CA0 in
order to know where to target their products. However, the few Hondurans and
Nicaraguan distributors that were found also expressed an interest in this information and
mentioned that the lack of such information was the biggest obstacle to increasing their
sales.

In addition, distributors that traded greater amounts of beans and also targeted
Hispanic communities with many different Hispanic products expressed an interest in
learning more about the Hispanic market, especially about specific preferences of
consumers and more importantly, where those consumers are located. These distributors
also expressed an interest in working directly with CAO firms who have representatives
in the U.S. in order to expand their participation in the market for CAD beans. However,
potential exporters from CA must be able to meet quality, volume, and consistency (i.e.,
continue supply) in order to compete successfully in this market.

Finally, there exists a potential gap of more than 7,500 MT between the annual
small red beans consumption of people of CA0 and the current volume of annual imports

from CA.

6.2 Policy Implications

This study confirms that there exists a significant unmet demand for beans of
CA0 in the U.S. and this demand is likely to grow in the future.

New initiatives are needed to assist CAO exporters to identify new markets in the
U.S. and to insure that small-scale farmers in the bean-producing countries benefit from

growth in bean exports to the U.S..

39

First, Central American exports-promotion offices in the Central American
countries need to play a more active role in assisting CAO exporters to obtain the
information needed to assess the demand for food products from CA. Also, since Central
American consulates and embassies in the U.S. interact with hundreds of people of CA0
each week, they could obtain information regarding these consumers’ preferences by
surveying their clients. Central American exports-promotion offices could take a more
active role in linking CAO exporters with U.S. distributors, providing U.S. importers
with contact information for reliable CAO exporters, and serving as a “representative” for
CAO exporters in the U.S. (with the assistance of consulates and embassies). By taking
on the role of “broker” between U.S. importers/distributors and CAO exporters, Central
American governments could relax many of the current constraints to increasing the
presence of CA0 beans in the U.S. market. For example, currently, the Salvadoran
government works closely with SAL exporters and U.S. importers and distributors to
increase the presence of SAL products in the U.S.. This initiative represents a successful
example from which other Central American countries could obtain important
information regarding how to better target the U.S. Hispanic food market. By working
closely with their exports-promotion office, the private sector in other Central American
countries could increase their share of this market.

Second, while small-scale farmers are the main producers of beans in CA, Central
American consulate representatives reported that these farmers have not benefited from
the grth in exports to the U.S.—both because they lack information about the
existence of this market and they are unable to meet this market’s quality standards.

Thus, new initiatives are needed to increase small-scale grower participation in bean

4O

exporting. For example, governments and NGOs could assist small-scale farmers to form
marketing associations that would educate farmers about the quality standards required
by the export market, insure that the association’s beans meet these standards, and assist

farmers to market beans directly to export-oriented CAO firms.

6.3 Limitations

The small consumer sample size is the most important limitation of this study,
especially the sample size for Hondurans. The consumer survey also failed to collect
information needed to assess the potential increase in CA0 consumers’ demand (if any)
for CAO beans, if they were more widely available, and data regarding household
characteristics such as the income level of the consumers. Finally, since this study
utilized the rapid appraisal method, it was not possible to analyze the information

collected from importers and distributors from a quantitative perspective.

6.4 Future Research

Surveying a larger sample of consumers and collecting information regarding
income levels and demand at different prices could allow doing an econometric analysis
that would help to better quantify the demand for CAO beans.

In addition to analyzing the demand for CAO beans among people of CA0 in the
U.S., there is also a need to assess the potential demand among the rest of the U.S.
population, including the demand by food chains for using small red CAO beans in

salads.

41

Finally, there is a need to make available to U.S. importers and distributors
information regarding the location of Hispanic grocery stores and to use GIS software to
map these locations. This information could help Latin American exporters and U.S.
importers and distributors of Hispanic food to target their products more efficiently and

to increase their share in the U.S. food market.

42

Appendix 1. Tracking Example

Once it was determined which states within the U.S. had the highest concentration
of people of CA0, the counties within these states and the tracts within the selected
counties with the highest concentration of people of CA0 were selected. As an example,
consider the Census Tract $4.02, which is located in Miami-Dade County in the State of
Florida. In Figure 1.1, the colored polygons represent the Census Tracts in Miami-Dade
County. Using these maps and the information from the Census, specific streets and
specifics tracts were identified where people of CA0 lived (see table below graphs).
Then, people of CA0 were located by specific country of origin, using the same method.

Table 1.1 Population of people of Hispanic origins in Census tract 54.02, Miami-Dade
County, Florida. Source: 2000 U.S. Census.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Census Tract
54.02,
Miami-Dade
County,
Population Florida
Total: 9,426
Not Hispanic or Latino 434
Hispanic or Latino 8,992
Central American: 1,979
Costa Rican 38
Guatemalan 85
Honduran 451
Nicaraguan l ,242
Panamanian 18
Salvadoran 92
Other Central American 53

 

 

43

Figure 1.1. People of CA0 in Miami-Dade County, Florida, by tract.

   
    
    
 

«*n
5
CI In floflduhpshp
- 143

Zoom of selected tracts (Track

Tract 54.02

Appendix 2. Survey guide for bean distributors/importers.

Company’s Market Area

1. What is the geographical area in which your company markets its products?
Describe:

 

2. What proportion of your clients are Hispanic and CAO grocery stores?

 

Costa Honduran Guatemalan Nicaraguan Salvadorian Other American/
Rican Hispanics Non-
Hispanic

 

 

%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current Sources of Dry Beans
3. Does your firm sell dry beans? (0=No; l=Yes)
4. Does your company sell beans of Latin American origin? (0=No; l=Yes)

IF NO: Why not?

 

IF NO. GO TO QUESTION 7

5. What problems does your company face in obtaining beans of CAD?
Describe:

 

6. What percent of your dry bean sales are beans of CA0? %
o What market classes do you sell?
0 What countries do these dry beans come from?
0 Do you sell any specific varieties of these market classes?
0 What percent of your sales are beans from each country?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Market Class Country of Bean Sales of LAO Varieties
Origin (%)

Small red

Black

Other

(describe)

 

45

 

7. Does your company obtain its CAO dry beans from a broker, or does it import
them directly from the country of origin?
(l=broker; 2=import; 3=botb sources)

Please name the source:

 

Company Name Market Contact Information State/
Class Country

 

 

 

 

Dry Beans Obtained From A Broker

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dry Beans Imported Directly

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. What criteria you use in deciding where to purchase the beans that you sell?

 

9. If your company could obtain additional bean market classes/varieties of
CA0, would there be a demand for these beans? (0=No, l=Yes)

IF YES:

0 What market classes would you like to purchase?

0 What varieties (or specific characteristics) would you like to purchase?
0 From what countries would you like to purchase beans?

0 How would you assess the strength of the demand for these beans?

 

 

 

 

Market Class Varieties or Specific Country Potential Demand
Characteristics of Origin (Modest, Strong,
Desired Very Strong)
Black
Small Red
Other

 

 

 

 

 

Changes in the Demand for Dfl Beans of Latin American Origin

10. In the past me years, have you sold more/less dry beans of Latin American
origin? (0=No change, l=Less ; 2=More)

IF MORE OR LESS

o What market classes?

0 From what countries?

0 What factors are responsible for this change?

46

 

ll.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Change Market Country Reason for Change
in Sales Class of Origin
Increase Small red
Black
Other:
Decrease Small red
Black
Other:

 

 

 

 

IF MORE OR LESS
o What market classes?
0 From what countries?

In the next five years, do you expect to sell more/less dry beans of CA0?
(0=No change, l=Less ; 2=More)

o What factors are responsible for this change?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Change Market Countries of Origin Reason for Change
in Sales Class
Increase Small red
Black
Other:
Decrease Small red
Black
Other:

 

 

 

 

INFORMATION ABOUT THE FIRM

IF YES

What country did the owner/owner’s family come from?

12. Is the owner of this firm a Hispanic?

(0=No, l=Yes)

 

 

 

13. What is the annual volume (metric tons) of this company’s bean sale?

14. In addition to beans, what other products does your firm sell?

 

47

Appendix 3. Survey guide for people of CA0

1. Does your family buy dry beans? (0=No; l=Yes)

YES IF:

0 How many lbs. of dry beans does your family consume each week (by market

class)?

0 What brands do you usually buy?
0 Why do you prefer these brands?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Market Class Pounds/ Preferred Brand Reason Preferred
week

Small red

Black

Other:

Other:

 

 

 

 

2. How many people are in your family (who eat these dry beans)?

Adults _ Children _
3. If available, would you be interested in buying beans of CA0?
(0=No, l=Yes) _
4. Does your family buy canned beans? (0=No; l=Yes) _
M

o How many cans of beans does your family consume each week(by market

class)?

0 What brands do you usually buy?
0 Why do you prefer these brands?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Market Class Pounds/ Preferred Brand Reason Preferred
week

Small red

Black

Other:

Other:

 

 

 

 

5. Since coming to the U.S. has your family consumption of canned beans changed?

6. IF MORE or LESS:

(l=more, 2=no change, 3=less)

48

Why?

 

7. What is your family’s ethnic background?
(l=Costa Rican, 2=Guatemalan; 3=Honduran; 4=Nicaraguan; 5=Salvadorian;
6=Mexican; 7=Other Hispanic; 8=American, Non-Hispanic)

8. How many years have you/your family lived in the U.S.?
9. What criteria do you use to buy small red beans?
(Circle) Color, brand, origin or price?

10. Where do you buy your beans?
(Circle) Only here? Supermarkets?

Where else?

 

49

Appendix 4. Populations of people of CAO in the U.S. by states and Puerto Rico.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Central
American: Guatemalan Honduran Nicaraguan Salvadoran
Ealifornia 576,330 143,500 30,372 51,336 272,999
lorida 202,772 28,650 41,229 79,559 20,701
ew York 181,875 29,074 35,135 8,033 72,713
Texas 146,723 18,539 24,179 7,487 79,204
New Jersey 80,497 16,992 15,431 4,384 25,230
Virginia 73,140 10,000 7,819 3,191 43,653
aryland 56,135 8,304 4,067 3,440 34,433
llinois 39,3 77 19,790 5,992 1,500 7,085
assachusetts 38,317 1 1,437 5,125 697 15,900
Georgia 31,813 10,718 5,158 1,394 8,497
North Carolina 30,783 5,966 8,321 1,449 8,679
Nevada 18,747 4,106 1,316 1 ,5 83 9,3 86
lLouisiana 17,327 2,093 8,792 2,804 1,127
DC. 15,803 1,350 853 594 11,741
Arizona 13,075 4,356 1,365 847 3,704
Connecticut 12,987 5,273 1,973 721 2,060
Washington 12,126 2,773 1,330 871 3,987
ode Island 11,320 8,949 491 110 1,206
ennsylvania 9,845 2,322 1 ,736 972 1,872
olorado 9,587 2,362 1,295 412 3,358
regon 7,955 3,512 654 393 2,178
ennessee 7,694 2,816 1,448 278 1,532
ichigan 7,189 3,059 1,037 409 1,136
tah 6,645 2,137 613 330 2,670
hio 6,577 1,648 998 593 1,514
innesota 6,180 1,684 925 376 2,005
ndiana 6,124 1,449 1,3 84 499 1,677
South Carolina 5,771 1,522 1,345 333 638
Arkansas 5,753 1,044 490 174 3 ,471
Nebraska 5,270 2,508 476 1 16 1,626
Missouri 5,086 1,574 966 280 1,091
Alabama 4,742 2,453 53 5 1 80 464
Kansas 4,484 1,080 657 171 1,649
Oklahoma 4,348 1,839 683 169 535
Wisconsin 4,020 801 782 757 671
owa 3,984 1,298 484 186 1,470
uerto Rico 3,793 421 430 430 555
entucky 3 ,l 16 1,090 478 143 646
elaware 2,462 1,633 125 67 23 5
ew Mexico 2,318 703 230 212 514

 

50

 

 

 

Appendix 4 (cont’d)

Mississippi 1,701 339 462 l 77 201
Hawaii 1,269 266 122 1 13 225
Alaska 1,201 181 143 63 447
Idaho 1,051 321 122 61 263
New

Hampshire 903 185 152 53 23 8
South Dakota 756 445 40 31 105
Maine 533 93 93 17 221
West Virginia 367 86 36 24 83
Vermont 246 52 43 20 5 1
lMontana 235 32 27 39 34
North Dakota 190 27 22 20 15
Wyoming 188 56 18 16 25

 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000

51

 

Appendix 5. Population of people of Hispanic origin-in selected Census tracts in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Washington, D.C.
Census Census Census Census Census Census Census
Tract Tract Tract Tract 29 Tract 37 Tract 38 Tract 50
27.01 27.02 28.02

Total: 5,742 6,052 4,700 4,189 4,990 4,718 7,278

Not Hispanic 4,] 14 3,975 2,302 2,579 3,361 3,41 1 5,133

Hispanic: 1,628 2,077 2,398 1,610 1,629 1,307 2,145
Mexican 142 160 101 105 92 109 3 55
Puerto Rican 51 30 19 30 29 39 48
Cuban 25 27 17 17 18 24 21
Dom. Republic 53 31 50 35 90 15 27
C. American: 658 1,083 1,342 848 829 517 932
Costa Rican 3 2 0 0 4 3 8
Guatemalan 56 85 69 42 58 50 379
Honduran 55 156 105 27 27 25 23
Nicaraguan 25 32 27 41 27 15 16
Panamanian 5 12 3 9 4 l 9
Salvadoran 485 73 8 1,065 666 678 3 85 472
Other Central
American 29 58 73 63 3 l 38 25
South American: 94 89 69 32 45 113 58
Argentinean 1 0 7 0 1 1 9 8
Bolivian 6 9 1 l l l 9 7
Chilean 3 10 2 1 1 6 l
Colombian 17 8 18 8 13 25 14
Ecuadorian 21 1 1 12 5 7 33 9
Paraguayan 3 2 2 O 2 0 1
Peruvian 24 35 16 12 1 1 15 9
Uruguayan 3 2 1 0 l 2 4
Venezuelan 2 1 4 3 4 5 4
Other South
American 5 4 3 1 4 9 1

Other Hispanics: 605 657 800 543 526 490 704

Spaniard 7 11 5 1 11 10 6
Spanish 43 54 73 34 69 60 83
Spanish American 5 10 1 6 1 l 2
All other
Hispanics 550 582 721 502 445 419 613

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.

52

00:800nm dofingmmcufl 080095H~ cocoaxnunm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

882mm Sm ::.2N.8ma0v 0 20:80 000 20:20 00.0
<00 m: : .>.z 2802280 .0 2:82 <2 083028 : .0 82820 2: .880 =<
cam whoop—06‘
Rot x0 8:25: .00 :5 .3 23. 88.83: 0 : 880 2t : 282 2:0 : 252
28m. <0 .m§< 8: .30 ”28> .83 3.: 0808020 0 2: 8:20
whom “Em Gonna
8828 83 38:8 :80 m0 0 820 8so
saw .838: 250 we. .82 352 228$ NM :8 :83
~88 :: 082:0 .0 50m .3 8: 82.420: 0 8:22.: a: 8:02.: a:
03.8 :0 2:38:50 .280 0:22:00 .2 88 533.20 23.020 5 0 880 2:3: 880 2.3:
<88 :2 .8888 .220 32:00 2: 32.80 am 88.8050 0 .0 «80 «80
880 .02 $8.922 38.03:: 0 .0 .2: <200<0 8280:: 2:
<0 082:8 00 2:0 20> :80 802 05.838 82.8008 0 .0 000 000
208 .<0 8:85 8: .30 88> 83 :2 8: 3.4020 0809.020 0 : .2: :80 0. 80:0 o>.20
:2 8 <0 .2520 .82.: 802:0 280 .0 88 8028.88 2038.28 0 8:8 05:28: 20822 a:
288 <0 .2802 8: 080.23% 830808 0 .0 8:222 2:28:80 .0:
0:000:30
88¢ <0 .8305 8: $8.232 88.238 0 : 8282820 82085020
~83 <0 221$ 5.0 8038.»; £2.08.” 5 0 .0 282: 888.:< 8882<
N38 <0 .265 2880 3:: 80 .00 0 8:22:20 258580
000.: owax £2009
<0 .9888 2:0 2.52 9.3 :8 88: $438.08 as. $008 0 : .0 280 «80
.u>< 825.5 .0 80 83.80% 0 8:82: 8:82:
880 02 2:32.00 .00 use: 0.82: N: 3%. am 88.08.03 0 .0 :80 8:20 20 8:20 20
208 838020 88.08.80 0 .0 2:8: 22%: 8882.:
.<0 .8280 00 280 ..<.. .00 822 8: :8: ma
88:8 .0 .0 823.0283 830.0 0 ._ .0 8820 _0 22.20 _0
-00.: 280 2520 2280 .0 820: 8: .80 «8:80:83 00
208 <0 800.3008 88. 5028300 0 : .0 8:20:20 0005:
.8280 00 saw ..0.. 2:0 .o>< 82820 82: 8038.08 .00 0005:
mmohcc< 00h 000.5 _ 00:00.5 _ 3:000 _ 002m

 

 

0.52093 000 .3000... $002095 .«0 0030508.: «03:00 .O £0023<

53

Appendix 7. Ethnic grocery stores that were visited in the selected cities.

Miami

- Mercadito Nicaragtiense at Centro Comercial Managua. 10140 West F lagler.
Total space ~ 50 square meters (m2).

- Fritanga at Centro Comercial Managua. 10140 West Flagler, local G. 50 m2.

- El Ranchito Minimarket at 10150 West F rangler. Total space ~ 40 m2.

- Miami Supermarket at 107 Fontainebleau. Total space ~ 600 m2.

San Francisco

- El Chico Produce at Mission St at Norton St. Total space ~ 800 m2.
- Casa Lucaz at Mission and Washington. Total space ~ 750 m2.

- Casa Guadalupe at 2909 Mission St. Total space ~ 650 m2.

- La Lorna Products at Mission and 24th St. Total space ~ 200 m2.

- Produce Market at Mission and 29th. Total space ~ 200 m2.

- La Loma at Mission and Richland. Total space ~ 200 m2.

- E1 Ahorro Market at Mission and Cortland. Total space ~ 75 m2.

Washington, D.C.
- El Paraiso Market at 1805 14th St NW.

- Chirilagua Market at Alexandria, MD.
- Safeway at 1701 Corcoran St NW.
- Todito Grocery, at 1813 Columbia Rd, NW.

Los Angeles
- El Centro Market at 4081 Beverly Blvd and Alexandria.

- California Market at 4331 Beverly Blvd and Kingsley.
- Rancho Sinaloa Market at Beverly Blvd and Catalina St. Total space ~ 75 m2.
- Pancho Market at 2125 Temple St and Lake. Total space ~ 75 m2.
- Beto’s Market at 766 Vermont. Total space ~ 75 m2.

- Liborios Market at 864 Vermont Ave. Total space ~ 450 m2.

Chicago
- Casa Hernandez, at 1725 Lunt st.

- Supermercado Roman, at Clark St and Lunt St. Total space ~ 150 m2.
- E1 Gallo, at 3254 W. Montrose and Spalding. Total space ~ 50 m2.

- Chicago Fruit Market, at Montrose and Albany. Total space ~ 450 m2.
- Jay’s, at Montrose and Sacramento. Total space ~ 75 m2.

- Dofia Maria, at 3518 W. Montrose and Drake. Total space ~ 75 m2.

- Chicago Products, at Lawrence and Drake. Total space ~ 350 m2.

- Armitage Produce, at Armitage and Kimball.

- Dominick’s, at Belmont and Kimball. Total space ~ 900 m2.

54

Appendix 8. Frequencies of brands found in ethnic grocery stores visited in Chicago
(CHI), Los Angeles (LA), Miami (MIA), Washington, D.C. (DC), and San Francisco
(SFO), by market class/origin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Black/Non CA ] I LA CHI SFO

1 F araon 3 5

2 C&F 2 .

3 No Brand 1 .

4 Goya 2 9 1

5 Liborios 1 . . . .

6 El Mexicano 3 . . . 4

7 Diana . . 1 . .

8 Holguin 2 . . . 1
Black CA J [ LA CHI MIA DC SFO

1 Racor 2 . . . 1

2 Tucan . . . . l

3 La Nuestra .

4 Negro Salvadoreno 1

5 Bravo 1

6 Lupita .

7 La Guanaquita 1

8 Asi es mi tierra . . . . 4
Red/Non CA j [ LA CHI MIA DC SFO

1 Goya 1 6 . . 1

2 C&F 1 . . . .

3 El Mexicano . . . . 5

4 Faraon l

5 Western Farm . . . . l

6 Dofia Delicia . . 1

7 Springfield 2 . . . .
Red/CA I 1 LA CHI MIA DC SFO

1 Goya CA . . 1 . .

2 Rio Grande 3 . . . 1

3 Santa Tecla . . . 1

4 Santa Tecla Hond . . . 1

5 No Brand . . 2

6 Gustoso
Mercadito

7 Nicaraguense . . 1 .

8 Rojo Chirilagua . . . 2 .
Silk red/CA T 1 LA CHI MIA DC SFO

l Charrapastique 1 .

2 Tucan 1 2

3 Amazonas 1

4 Guanacos . . . 1

5 Goya 4 4 . 1

55

 

7

8

9
10
ll
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18

 

Appendix 8 (cont’d)
6

Racor

Graneros

No Brand
Carmencita

La Miguelena
San Fco Morazan
Rio grande rosado
Rilosa Nicaragua
Costa del Sol

Asi es mi Tierra
Salvador

Rojo de Seda
Rio Grande

2
2 .
. 3
2 .
1 . 1
l
1
2 2

Hp—nq—nww.

 

CA=From Central America. NON CA=N0t from Central America

56

 

 

 

450ng

.m.: 2.: E mcaotoE< _Eucoo

doom .maaoowfi
”850m Gog—smog 5:9: 28:2: .808 Hoist cab .93: 3 .m.D 2: E O<U no 2:8.— uo act—513% 2: .«e an: d 355...?

57

uazéo owed, <mD ”oouzom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4m o o o o o o o o a o o mawaaaz
2 c o o o c o o o o o o megs:
a m c S o _ _ m m: 4: o mm 2: 23220
S 2 a N N _ N o E _ o o 833 _m
:85
2S Em 3 8m 8 o 3 9. E o o a «$882
o? as” o o 2 o o m a c o o 358$
3: N: a ”m 3 E o c o o c o Engage
82 82 $8 a» on: g E 3a 2 m ca 3 :N 5328 _m
88 Sou 88 88 82 M32 32 $2 32 ES 82 82 BL _aem

.8882 .88 0508 5 358 3 <0 Boa 98%: 53 .md .2: 29¢

057:0 ova; <mD Hoofiom
a: S: :2 £3 83 53 «3o 83 :3 E; 23 God 550
cm; on; 83 83 Sod Rod N55 83 22 08.0 Ed 33 fism
82 SE 3: 82 «8.. 82 32 SE was 42.0 23 SN... e2 :25
$3 83 83 $2 83 mm: :2 a: N2: mac 2.; 22 $.28 E; E: 383 .55
:3 ES fine Ed 48.0 22:. Sod Soc 23 ES 83 83 80m @622:
3:25 35 €82 23m 328
$3 :2 $2 42:. 82 82 £2 52. 23 33 $3 on; comm 2: jam _5 .238
8a 323 a 28m DEE .828
23 $3 :2 E3 32 $2. 82. Smo 2 3 Rod 23. $2 Bum 2: 8:25 35
3335 Ex :25 “Sam 228

ms; 82 82 Sue 82 82 Sod ES S3 0 o o 952% 8.5 .85 5%
3C ems: 2E3 28m :28

moon Noam Sow ooom 32 woo. 32 82 32 go. 82 N3—

 

 

 

.moomée £2628 8:3: 5 3% Dime 3 <0 50¢ 25%: 53 .m: .2: 2an

.macN-Naa~ .<U Ea...“ mien-E 53: .m.D .c— 51:22:,

58

REFERENCES

Batres-Mérquez, S; Jensen, H; Brester, G. 2003. Salvadoran Consumption of Ethnic
Foods in the United States. Journal of Food Distribution Research 34 (2): 1-16.

Cabrera, O. 2003. Nuevo cohete comercial rumbo a EE.UU. (en linea). El Diario. San
Salvador. Consulted on June 12th 2003. Available on: www.elsalvador.com/noticias/
2003/2/12/negocios/negoc3.html

Cheskin Group. 2002. Hispanic Trends. Cheskin’s Market Insight Report.

Food Marketing Institute. 2002. U.S. Hispanics: Insights into Grocery Shopping
Preferences & Attitudes, Executive Summary (on-line). Food Marketing Institute, USA.
Consulted on June 5th 2003. Available on: httpz/lfmi.org/pub/summaries/
hispanicexecsummarypdf

Humphreys, J. 2003. The multicultural economy 2003, America's minority buying power.
Georgia Business and Economic Conditions. 63(2):1-26.

Lucier, G; Lin, B; Allshouse, J; Kantor, L. 2001. Factors Affecting Dry Bean
Consumption in the United States. Washington, D.C. Economic Research Service/USDA.

Martinez, L. 2003. An integrated assessment of the dry bean subsector in Central
America. Thesis for Masters Degree. Michigan State University.

Ministerio de Economia de El Salvador. 2003. Estudio de mercado de productos étnicos
en Estados Unidos: caso de estudio Frijol rojo salvadorefio. San Salvador. Ministerio de
Economia de El Salvador.

USA trade on-line. 2003. U.S. Foreign comerse Data Base. (en linea). Consulted on
January 18th 2003. Available on: www.usatradeonline.gov (on-line). Consulted on
September 2nd 2003. Available on: http://www.census.gov/

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Hispanic origin (on-line). Consulted on June 15 2004.
Available on: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68 l 88.htm

USDA (United Status Department of Agriculture). 1998. Continuing Survey of Food
Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). Washington, D.C. Agricultural Research Service/USDA.

59

I“'QI'I‘I‘EIIIIIJIIJIIIIII‘IJIII