A new study by the Yesodot Institute-Arlozorov Forum, a Histadrut (General Federation of Labor in Israel) think tank, in cooperation with the Histadrut Consumer Authority, portrays the lowering of customs duties on tuna as a failure. A more thorough examination of the research data themselves, however, reveals that the exact opposite is true: in comparison with the high prices prevailing in the Israeli market, lowering import taxes achieved significant success.
Tuna, however, is only one example. There is nothing accidental about the contradiction between the actual figures and the Histadrut's conclusions. This method is employed repeatedly: when a reduction in customs duties and opening the economy to competition is under consideration, the Histadrut's research institutes create a narrative framework of "failure of the reform." Instead of serving a public being strangled by the cost of living, it seems that this mechanism is being used to represent other interests.
Local packing made superfluous
The story begins in 2013, over a decade ago, when the tariff on imported cans of tuna was gradually reduced, with the aim of lowering the price in the stores and alleviating the soaring cost of living. It is important to realize the difference made by lowering the tariff. Israel does not harvest its own tuna and has never done so - all the tuna consumed in the country has always been imported. Before the reform, the Israeli plant operated by StarKist Tuna and Diplomat Global (which has since closed) imported the fish in large commercial containers. All the Israeli plant did was to repack it in cans for the Israeli consumer.
As soon as the import taxes on the finished cans themselves were reduced, this economic advantage vanished. Importing tuna in bulk and maintaining a local packing line was no longer worthwhile because the finished cans could now be imported directly from anywhere, as is the practice everywhere else in the world at the same or a lower price. Local packing was rendered superfluous and the Israeli market was exposed to a wider variety of products at lower prices.
Was it really a "negligible decrease"?
According to the study, the price of tuna fell only 1.1% between 2013 and 2023 - a figure described by the researchers as "negligible." This number, however, does not represent the whole picture. The price of tuna rose globally during this period, due to the higher cost of raw material, among other factors, putting upward pressure on the price in Israel as well. The effect of the import tax itself - the isolated effect of lowering the tax, excluding the increase in the global price - is estimated at a 6% decrease. In other words, had the tariff not been lowered, the price of tuna in Israel would have risen, not fallen.
Understanding the significance of this in relation to the market as a whole requires a comparison with the general trend in food prices. During this period, the Israeli food price index (excluding fruits and vegetables) rose 13.4%, meaning that while the price of all the rest of the food basket was climbing steeply, the price of tuna was almost unchanged because the drop in the import tax offset the increase in the global price.
The study proves the opposite
The study itself reveals another interesting figure: the price of tuna fell between 2013 and 2020, but rose between 2020 and 2023, before holding steady at a slightly lower level than at the beginning of the period. Ostensibly, this course of events could be attributed to the closing of the StarKist plant in Israel, but the true explanation is much simpler: the global price of tuna rose. The figures presented by Yesodot-Arlozorov themselves show a double-digit percentage spurt in the price of unprocessed tuna during this time.
There is no reason to suppose that local packing in Israel would have prevented this increase. The raw material - the preserved tuna itself - is completely identical in both scenarios. In other words, what is referred to as "the Israeli industry" was not an independent industry at all; it was a code name for a local plant of a global producer (StarKist). The sole function of this plant was processing and repacking. It profited at the expense of the Israeli consumer as long as the import duty protected it from foreign competition.
A dramatic effect
A perusal of the original analysis by the Histadrut-sponsored Yesodot Institute-Arlozorov Forum reveals clear proof that lowering the tariff was successful. The study found a statistically significant effect: every reduction of NIS 1 in the import tax saved the Israeli consumer NIS 0.74. Furthermore, when the study compared the price to the Israeli consumer to the price in France (a stand-in for the global price), the effect proved to be even more dramatic - every reduction of NIS 1 in the import tax lowered the price to the Israeli consumer by NIS 0.86. The Yesodot-Arlozorov study itself states that the price of tuna in France rose during the relevant period, but fell in Israel.
This clearcut result leads inexorably to the conclusion that lowering the import tax lowers the price - the exact opposite of both the spirit of the study and the title appearing above it. This result is also evident in the diversity generated in the market and the stream of private brand tuna now offered on store shelves.
Confirmation of this comes from a probe conducted by the Israel Competition Authority in 2022. It found that "A significant consequence of reducing customs duties on imported packaged tuna products, the consumer price of which declined more after the import taxes were lowered than the decrease in the duty itself… It is evident that reducing the tariffs caused an aggregate saving of NIS 38 million a year in spending by households on tuna products, while a conservative estimate (upper bound) of the loss of government revenues from import duties was NIS 11 million a year… Following the tariff reduction, the variety of products and brands sold to the consumer in food marketing chains grew and new suppliers entered the sector, resulting in a decrease in concentration in the suppliers segment."
None of this kept the study from stating, "The increase in competition, insofar as there was any, was limited and led to no effective fall in the consumer price… and the reform caused a dramatic cutback in local production, which affected employment possibilities in outlying areas."
The study itself did not deal at all with employment in the outlying areas, but this question was addressed by then-Senior Division Manager in the Chief Economist Division and current Senior Deputy to the Chief Economist Galit Ben Naim. In a position paper she wrote, "The contribution of the tuna industry to the outlying areas is marginal. The total number of people employed in these enterprises is only 400. These employees enjoy high employment mobility and have fairly short periods of unemployment." Her examination found that most of these workers found alternative employment within less than a year.
Not the first time
The current study comes on top of a series of studies published by the Yesodot Institute-Arlozorov Forum with the aim of thwarting the opening of the economy to overseas competition. Last May, the Histadrut asked Minister of Agriculture and Food Security Avi Dichter to halt chicken imports from Brazil. The Histadrut represents workers at the Miluof and Galilee Poultry plants that will compete with such imports.
Studies by Yesodot-Arlozorov and others, as well as articles published by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security against the removal of price controls, were published in "Calcalist," a financial newspaper that competes with "Globes," accompanied by very little criticism of the interests of the research institutes themselves. At the same time, the facts are incontrovertible - and the results of the examination in the study were the opposite of what appears in its summary and its title. In fact, this case is one more in a list of success from cuts in import duties and opening the market to imports.
As previously reported by "Globes," reducing tariffs on fish caused frozen fish prices to plunge in comparison with other food products. Opening the market to imports from Costa Rica sliced the price of pineapples in half. A "Globes" investigation found that Dichter was in error when he stated that a cut in the import duty had not lowered the price of garlic - the price actually dropped by 26%.
This is also not the first time that "Calcalist" has published reports of this type. Another report on a study by Yesodot-Arlozorov presented a supposedly positive effect of price controls, a review by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security was presented as though opening the market to imported butter and removal of butter price controls had failed, and a number of articles on duty-free imports of hard cheeses were published with negative headlines.
All this leads to two conclusions. The first is that when the market is opened completely to imports and all barriers are removed, consumer prices fall and the cost-of-living burden is lightened. The second is that there are many parties seeking to prove with signs and wonders that exposure to competition does not lower the price to the consumer - even when it does. Some of these parties are tainted by a strong interest in the matter.
Responses
The Yesodot Institute-Arlozorov Forum said in response, "The claim that the study portrayed the reduction in import taxes as not lowering the consumer price of tuna is incorrect. The question that the study sought to examine is broader - the long-term results of the reform and whether it achieved its targets beyond the initial effect on the price.
"In the decade examined in the study, the consumer price of tuna remained at about the same level and even fell, depending on how it is measured. At the same time, local production was reduced and the market remained concentrated. The portrayal of the reform as a clear consumer success on the basis of the fact that some of the reduction in customs duties was rolled over onto the price does not reflect all the findings. The price that would have resulted in a scenario without the reform is unknown and there is no professional way of determining in retrospect that it would have risen by a specific rate. Such a comparison is a hypothetical scenario, not an empirical finding.
"The analysis in the study also takes into account the price of the raw material on the global market. Its price level posted a significant drop during most of the period - more significant than the fall in tuna prices in Israel. Concerning employment, precision is important: the study does not examine the extent to which workers at plants that closed or were downsized found alternative employment, and therefore also does not claim that they did not find employment.
"Finally, the Yesodot Institute-Arlozorov Forum operates with complete transparency and is proud of its affiliation with the Histadrut. For that very reason, it is correct to assess the study on the basis of its data, methodology, and findings, rather than putting a discussion of them in the context of interests. The primary conclusion of the study is not that the reduction of the import duty 'did not help consumers;' it is that the question of whether the reform succeeded requires consideration of its overall long-term results: the consumer price, competition in the market, and the effect on local manufacturing. This is exactly the analysis that the study seeks to provide. We are glad of the discourse that has developed concerning the study and invite its critics to read it and continue the professional debate."
The Histadrut said in response, "The attempted import reform in recent years proves that lowering customs duties without oversight mechanisms has not made the consumer basket cheaper. A responsible policy should view the economy from a holistic perspective - lowering the prices of products while at the same time safeguarding food security, Israeli manufacturing, and employment, as is practiced everywhere in the world. The struggle against the cost of living and cartels of importers is a top priority for us and we will continue promoting well-founded measures that will really reach the public's pocket." "Calcalist" made no response.
Full disclosure: "Calcalist," which is owned by "Yedioth Ahronoth," and "Globes" are competing newspapers.
Published by Globes, Israel business news - en.globes.co.il - on August 13, 2026.
© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd., 2026.