UPA says falling prices reduced the profitability of summer fruit in Spain

A season with sales, but falling prices

The Union of Small Farmers and Ranchers (UPA) has ended the 2026 summer fruit season in Spain with a negative assessment for producers. According to the organization, the season began with normal production and a balanced supply and demand, but prices started falling early and continuously from June onward.

UPA attributes this trend to commercial pressure from intermediaries and supermarket chains. Its Secretary of Agriculture, Ignacio Huertas, says the fruit was sold and that the decline was not due to a lack of demand. The organization also says it detected deliberate shortages of stone fruit on some supermarket shelves at the start of the season, an allegation it presents as an example of supply manipulation. The sources consulted do not provide independent verification of this claim.

The gap between farm-gate and shelf prices, according to UPA

As an example of the price difference, UPA cites stone fruit sold by the producer for €0.55 per kilo, including expenses, and offered on the shelf for €3.60 per kilo, in half-kilo trays. The organization calculates a gap of 554% and calls for greater transparency and a more balanced distribution of value among the links in the supply chain.

The comparison shows a distance between two prices, but does not detail the costs and margins at each stage—such as preparation, transport, packaging or marketing. On its own, therefore, it does not establish what share of the difference represents each operator’s net profit. UPA’s central allegation is that, in its view, the price paid to the producer does not adequately reflect the value the product reaches at the point of sale to consumers.

Labor, inputs and foreign competition

The organization says the problem extends beyond prices. It notes that producers of stone fruit, melons and watermelons face difficulties finding workers, insufficient availability of active substances for managing pests and diseases, and competition from imports from non-EU countries, which UPA describes as unfair.

In its assessment, the combination of low profitability and production obstacles may undermine the continuity of farms and generational renewal. This is a concern expressed by the organization, not a consequence quantified in the data released about the season.

UPA’s position on funding for the future CAP

UPA also opposes the proposal for the future Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) which, according to the organization, would require national co-financing of at least 30% for the fruit and vegetable sectoral intervention. Its advisory body calls for at least the current level of funding to be maintained and describes the existing scheme as 50% from European funds and 50% covered by producer organizations.

The dispute concerns the funding of this sectoral intervention under the future CAP. The available information sets out UPA’s position but does not establish the outcome of the negotiations or the final conditions that will apply.