NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited)

1. General

References in this report to Fresh Del Monte, “we”, “our”, “us”, and the “Company” refer to Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. and its subsidiaries, unless the context indicates otherwise.

We were incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands on August 29, 1996 and are 26.8% owned by IAT Group Inc. as of June 27, 2008, which is 100% beneficially owned by members of the Abu-Ghazaleh family. In addition, members of the Abu-Ghazaleh family directly own 7.7% of our outstanding ordinary shares as of June 27, 2008.

Prior to March 31, 2008, we qualified as a “foreign private issuer” for purposes of filing and disclosure requirements under the United States securities laws. As a “foreign private issuer” under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), we filed our annual report with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on Form 20-F. Effective March 31, 2008, we no longer satisfied the definition of a “foreign private issuer” under the Exchange Act and we are now required to file our annual reports on Form 10-K and our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q.

In our opinion, the accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements include all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring adjustments, necessary to present fairly our financial position as of June 27, 2008 and our operating results and cash flows for the quarter and six-month period then ended. Interim results are subject to significant seasonal variations and may not be indicative of the results of operations that may be expected for the entire 2008 year.

Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation.

For additional information, see our Consolidated Financial Statements included in our Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 28, 2007.

2. Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 157, “ Fair Value Measurements ”. SFAS No. 157 defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and enhances disclosures about fair value measures required under other accounting pronouncements, but does not change existing guidance as to whether or not an instrument is carried at fair value. SFAS No. 157 was effective for us beginning on December 29, 2007, the first day of our 2008 year.

Additionally on February 6, 2008, the FASB finalized FASB Staff Position 157-2, “ Fair Value Measurements ” (“FSP 157-2”) and agreed to defer the effective date of SFAS No. 157 until years beginning after November 15, 2008 for certain nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities, except those that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a recurring basis (at least annually). The deferral applies to the annual assessment of fair value performed for goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets under SFAS No. 142, “ Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets ”, long-lived assets measured at fair value for an impairment assessment under SFAS No. 144, “ Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets ”, asset retirement obligations accounted for under SFAS No. 143, “ Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations ” and liabilities for exit or disposal activities initially measured at fair value under SFAS No. 146, “ Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities ”. In accordance with SFAS No. 157 and FSP 157-2, we have adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 157 with respect to our financial assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value within the Consolidated Financial Statements commencing on December 29, 2007, the first day of our 2008 year. Our adoption of SFAS No. 157 has not had any material impact on our Consolidated Financial Statements as of June 27, 2008. Refer to note 14, “ Fair Value Measurements ”. We are currently evaluating the impact of adopting the items deferred by FSP 157-2 on our Consolidated Financial Statements.

On December 4, 2007, the FASB issued Statement No. 141(R), “ Business Combinations ” and Statement No. 160, “Accounting and Reporting of Noncontrolling Interest in Consolidated Financial Statements, an amendment of ARB No. 51” . These new standards will significantly change the accounting for and reporting of business combination transactions and noncontrolling (minority) interests in consolidated financial statements. SFAS No. 160 requires classification of noncontrolling interests as a component of consolidated shareholder’s equity and the elimination of “minority interest” accounting in results of operations. Earnings attributable to noncontrolling interests are required to be reported as part of consolidated earnings and not as a separate component of income or expense. However, earnings attributable to the noncontrolling interests are required to be disclosed on the face of the income statement. SFAS No. 141(R) and SFAS No. 160 are required to be adopted simultaneously and are effective on the first day of our 2009 year. Earlier adoption is prohibited. We are currently evaluating the impact of adopting SFAS No. 141(R) and SFAS No. 160 on our Consolidated Financial Statements.

4

Table of Contents

FRESH DEL MONTE PRODUCE INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) (Unaudited)

2. Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements (continued)

In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161, “Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities ”, an amendment of SFAS No. 133, “ Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities” . SFAS No. 161 requires entities to provide greater transparency in derivative disclosures by requiring qualitative disclosure about objectives and strategies for using derivatives and quantitative disclosures about fair value amounts of and gains and losses on derivative instruments. SFAS No. 161 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008. We will be required to comply with the disclosure requirements of SFAS No. 161 in our 2009 first quarter financial statements.

3. Acquisitions

On June 6, 2008, we completed the acquisition for 100% of the shares of Desarollo Agroindustrial de Frutales, S.A., a producer of high quality bananas in Costa Rica; Frutas de Exportacion, S.A., a major provider of gold pineapples in Costa Rica; and an affiliated sales and marketing company, collectively known as “Caribana” for a purchase price of $405.4 million, which includes $2.4 million in acquisition related expenses. The acquisition was funded with $88.5 million in cash on hand and drawings under the existing syndicated revolving credit facility, which matures on November 10, 2009.

As a result of the acquisition, our current land holdings in Costa Rica increased by approximately 13,000 hectares of quality farm land. In addition to farm land, the Company acquired plantations and farming and packing infrastructure for the production of bananas and pineapples. Caribana produces approximately 13 million boxes of bananas and 11 million boxes of pineapples annually.

The purchase price allocation for this transaction is preliminary. We expect to finalize the purchase price allocation during 2008. The allocation will be completed when the appraisal of assets acquired, valuation of intangibles, and estimates associated with deferred taxes and other costs related to the acquisition are finalized. The actual allocation of the purchase price and the effect on our consolidated financial position will likely differ from the unaudited condensed balance sheet of Caribana included herein.

The following is a condensed balance sheet of Caribana at June 6, 2008, based on the preliminary assessment of fair value including the major captions of assets acquired (U.S. dollars in millions):

The valuation of property, plant and equipment to be provided by an independent appraisal is pending. The fair value of intangible assets acquired and goodwill are based on preliminary valuations provided by independent appraisals. The non-compete agreements obtained as part of the Caribana acquisition are being amortized over a period of 10 years. Goodwill represents the excess purchase price above the fair market value of the net assets acquired. Based on the preliminary purchase price allocation, $198.0 million in goodwill will be allocated to the other fresh produce segment, none of which is tax deductible.

We have included the operations of Caribana in our Consolidated Statements of Income beginning with the June 6, 2008 acquisition date.

5

Table of Contents

FRESH DEL MONTE PRODUCE INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) (Unaudited)

3. Acquisitions (continued)

The following unaudited pro-forma information presents a summary of our consolidated results of operations as if the Caribana acquisition had occurred as of December 30, 2006, the first day of our 2007 year (U.S. dollars in millions):

On June 27, 2008, we acquired certain operating assets, excluding land, of Melones de Costa Rica, S.A. (“MCR”). MCR is a 50% owned unconsolidated subsidiary that produced melons for us in Costa Rica. MCR will continue to own the land which will be leased to us on a long-term basis. Total area under production is approximately 2,300 hectares with an estimated annual production of 3 million boxes. The purchase price is approximately $8.3 million of which $4.2 million will be paid in 2008 using operating cash flows and available borrowings under our Credit Facility and the remaining $4.1 million will be paid in June 2009.

4. Asset Impairment and Other Charges

The following represents a summary of asset impairment and other charges (credits), net recorded during the quarter and six months ended June 27, 2008 and June 29, 2007 (U.S. dollars in millions):

The $11.6 million in asset impairment and other charges, net for the quarter ended June 27, 2008 includes an asset impairment charge of $9.5 million due to extensive flood damage in our Brazil banana operations and $2.3 million in charges primarily related to asset impairment due to the closure of under-utilized distribution centers in the United Kingdom in the banana segment. Also included in the $11.6 million is a net credit of $0.7 million related to the previously announced decision to exit production activities in Hawaii in 2006 principally related to the amortization of deferred pension gains in the other fresh produce segment.

The $16.2 million in asset impairment and other charges, net for the six months ended June 27, 2008 includes an asset impairment charge of $9.5 million due to extensive flood damage in our Brazil banana operations and $5.9 million in charges related to the closure of under-utilized distribution centers in the United Kingdom in the banana segment. Of the $5.9 million, $3.1 million relates to asset impairment and a net charge of $2.8 million relates to one-time termination benefits and contract termination costs. Also included in the $16.2 million are charges of $1.7 million related to one-time termination benefits resulting from the previously announced closure of a beverage production facility in the United Kingdom in the prepared food segment and a net credit of $1.1 million related to the previously announced decision to exit production activities in Hawaii in 2006 of which $1.6 million relates to the amortization of deferred pension gains offset by $0.4 million related to other exit activity charges in the other fresh produce segment.

6

Table of Contents

FRESH DEL MONTE PRODUCE INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) (Unaudited)

4. Asset Impairment and Other Charges (continued)

We maintain insurance for both property damage and business interruption applicable to our production facilities including our operations in Brazil. The policies providing the coverage are subject to deductibles of $0.1 million for property damage and business interruption. We are pursuing recoveries under both policies related to the damage to our banana operations in Brazil. The amount of total recoveries cannot be estimated at this time.

Asset impairment and other charges, net for the quarter and six months ended June 29, 2007 includes $5.1 million in asset impairment charges related to assets held for sale and $0.4 million related to exit activities in Italy included in the prepared food segment.

As a result of the decision to exit all production activities in Hawaii in 2006, we recorded a net gain of $0.6 million and $3.5 million for the quarter and six months ended June 29, 2007 in asset impairment and other charges, net primarily related to the U.S. based post-retirement healthcare plan. The $0.6 million net gain for the quarter ended June 29, 2007 was primarily due to the amortization of deferred pension gains. The $3.5 million net credit includes a curtailment gain of $3.4 million and amortization of deferred pension gains of $1.0 million. The curtailment gain of $3.4 million occurred as a result of the recognition of a prior service credit due to employee turnover and actuarial gains for the six months ended June 29, 2007. The $3.5 million net credit also includes a charge of $1.0 million for additional one-time termination benefits as a result of legal proceedings and negotiations with the union in Hawaii.

Included in the exit activity reserve balance at June 27, 2008 are one-time termination benefits, contract termination costs and other exit activity charges related primarily to (1) the previously announced decision to exit the Hawaiian production operations included in the other fresh produce segment and (2) the closure of under-utilized distribution centers in the United Kingdom in the banana segment.

5. Uncertain Tax Positions

As of December 28, 2007, we had $13.0 million of uncertain tax positions, including $2.2 million of interest and penalties. During the quarter ended June 27, 2008, there was a decrease of $0.7 million relating to uncertain tax positions, including interest and penalties of $0.2 million, as a result of the reversal of tax positions recorded during a prior period. The change in uncertain tax positions for the quarter ended June 27, 2008 was a net benefit of $0.1 million all of which will affect the effective tax rate.

We classify interest and penalties on uncertain tax positions as a component of income tax expense in Consolidated Statements of Income.

7

Table of Contents

FRESH DEL MONTE PRODUCE INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) (Unaudited)

6. Stock-Based Compensation

On April 30, 2008, our shareholders approved and ratified an amendment to the 1999 Share Incentive Plan (the “1999 Plan”), which authorized an additional 3,000,000 shares increasing the aggregate ordinary shares to 9,000,000 under which options may be granted under the 1999 Plan.

Stock-based compensation expense related to stock options included in the determination of income before taxes and net income totaled $1.7 million or $0.03 per diluted share and $3.8 million or $0.06 per diluted share for the quarter and six months ended June 27, 2008 and $1.5 million or $0.03 per diluted share and $3.0 million or $0.05 per diluted share for the quarter and six months ended June 29, 2007, respectively, on a straight-line, single award basis and is included in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Income, in selling, general and administrative expenses.

We are in a net operating loss position in the relevant jurisdictions. Therefore, for the quarter and six months ended June 27, 2008, deferred tax assets related to stock-based compensation expense have been fully reserved and there was no reduction in taxes currently payable or related effect on cash flows as the result of excess tax benefits from stock options exercised in these periods. The proceeds received from exercise of stock options were $21.3 million and $1.8 million for the six months ended June 27, 2008 and June 29, 2007, respectively.

As a result of the retirement of a former executive, on May 2, 2008, we modified his existing grants to accelerate vesting on 30,000 of his unvested options. Consistent with FASB SFAS No. 123(R), “Share-Based Payment” , the original granted options were cancelled and new modified options were granted with accelerated vesting terms. These options became fully vested on the date of retirement. Based on the modified grant date fair values of $18.28 and $5.54, we recognized $0.6 million of stock-based compensation expense related to this grant which is included in the $1.7 million and $3.8 million of stock compensation expense for the quarter and six months ended June 27, 2008.

On February 27, 2008, we granted 161,000 stock options from our 1999 Plan to our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer with a grant date fair value of $11.71 per option. These options vested 20% on the grant date and then will vest 20% on each of the next four anniversary dates.

On February 27, 2008, we granted, in equal amounts, stock options from our 1999 Plan totaling 43,750 to seven non-management members of our Board of Directors with a grant date fair value of $9.25 per option. These options vested 100% on the grant date.

On May 2, 2007, we granted 161,000 stock options from our 1999 Share Incentive Program to our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer with a grant date fair value of $8.90 per option. These options vested 20% on the grant date and then will vest 20% on each of the next four anniversary dates. These options may be exercised over a period not in excess of ten years.

On February 28, 2007, we granted, in equal amounts, stock options from our 1997 Share Incentive Plan totaling 37,500 to six non-management members of our Board of Directors with a grant date fair value of $3.94 per option. These options vested 100% on the grant date.

8

Table of Contents

8. Long-Term Debt and Capital Lease Obligations

Our long-term debt consists principally of a four-year syndicated revolving credit facility (the “Credit Facility”) with Rabobank Nederland, New York Branch, as administrative agent. The Credit Facility includes a revolving commitment of $600.0 million expiring on November 10, 2009 and a term loan commitment (the “Term Loan”).

The Term Loan is a five-year amortizing loan with quarterly payments of principal and interest which matures on May 10, 2011. At June 27, 2008, we had $141.6 million outstanding under the Term Loan. The interest rate on the Term Loan (3.25% at June 27, 2008) is based on a spread over the London Interbank Offer Rate (“LIBOR”).

The Credit Facility is collateralized directly or indirectly by substantially all of our assets and is guaranteed by certain of our subsidiaries. The Credit Facility permits borrowings with an interest rate, determined by our leverage ratio, based on a spread over LIBOR (3.32% at June 27, 2008). The Credit Facility requires us to be in compliance with various financial and other covenants and limits the amount of future dividends. As of June 27, 2008, we were in compliance with all of the financial and other covenants contained in the Credit Facility.

At June 27, 2008, we had $277.1 million available under committed working capital facilities, primarily under the Credit Facility. The Credit Facility also includes a swing line facility and a letter of credit facility. At June 27, 2008, we applied $44.4 million to the letter of credit facility, comprised primarily of certain contingent obligations and other governmental agency guarantees combined with guarantees for purchases of raw materials and equipment.

At June 27, 2008, we had $448.6 million of long-term debt and capital lease obligations, including the current portion, consisting of $421.9 million outstanding under the Credit Facility (including the Term Loan), $12.5 million of capital lease obligations and $14.2 million of other long-term debt and notes payable.

9. Comprehensive Income

The following table sets forth comprehensive income for the quarter and six months ended June 27, 2008 and June 29, 2007 (U.S. dollars in millions):

9

Table of Contents

FRESH DEL MONTE PRODUCE INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) (Unaudited)

10. Litigation

DBCP Litigation

Beginning in December 1993, certain of our U.S. subsidiaries were named among the defendants in a number of actions in courts in Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii, California and the Philippines involving claims by numerous non-U.S. plaintiffs that they were injured as a result of exposure to a nematocide containing the chemical dibromochloropropane (“DBCP”) during the period 1965 to 1990. As a result of a settlement entered into in December 1998, the remaining unresolved DBCP claims against our U.S. subsidiaries are pending in Hawaii, Louisiana and California.

In 1997, plaintiffs from Costa Rica and Guatemala named certain of our U.S. subsidiaries in a purported class action in Hawaii. The action was dismissed by a federal district court on grounds of forum non conveniens in favor of the courts of the plaintiffs’ home countries and the plaintiffs appealed this decision. On April 22, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the plaintiffs’ appeal of the dismissal, thereby remanding the action to the Hawaiian state court. On April 27, 2007, our U.S. subsidiaries named in the action which do not have ties to Hawaii filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed these subsidiaries from the action on June 28, 2007. On February 19, 2008, plaintiffs moved to certify a worldwide class of farm workers allegedly injured from exposure to DBCP, which motion was denied at a hearing held on June 4, 2008. A trial date of February 2009 has been set for the ten named plaintiffs, although discovery has not yet commenced.

On November 15, 1999, one of our subsidiaries was served in two actions entitled, Godoy Rodriguez, et al. v. AMVAC Chemical Corp., et al . and Martinez Puerto, et al. v. AMVAC Chemical Corp., et al. , in the 29 ^th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Charles, Louisiana. These actions were removed to federal court, where they have been consolidated. As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hawaiian action, the district court remanded these actions to state court in Louisiana. At this time, it is not known how many of the approximately 315 remaining Godoy Rodriguez and Martinez Puerto plaintiffs are making claims against the Fresh Del Monte subsidiary.

On October 14, 2004, two of our subsidiaries were served with a complaint in an action styled Angel Abarca, et al. v. Dole Food Co., et al. filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of more than 2,600 Costa Rican banana workers who claim injury from exposure to DBCP. An initial review of the plaintiffs in the Abarca action found that a substantial number of the plaintiffs were claimants in prior DBCP actions in Texas and may have participated in the settlement of those actions. On May 6, 2008, the court dismissed the claims of 1,113 plaintiffs who were parties to prior DBCP actions. On June 30, 2008, Defendants moved to dismiss the claims of the remaining Abarca plaintiffs on grounds of forum non conveniens . The motion to dismiss is scheduled to be heard on October 7, 2008.

On April 25, 2005, two of our subsidiaries were served with a complaint styled Juan Jose Abrego, et. al. v. Dole Food Company, et al . filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of 955 Guatemalan residents who claim injury from exposure to DBCP. An initial review of the plaintiffs in the Abarca action found that a substantial number of the plaintiffs were claimants in prior DBCP actions and may have participated in the settlement of those actions. On May 6, 2008, the court dismissed the claims of 206 plaintiffs who were parties to prior DBCP actions.

Former Shareholders Litigation

On December 30, 2002, we were served with a complaint filed on December 18, 2002 in the Circuit Court of the 11 ^th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida by seven Mexican individuals and corporations, who claim to have been former indirect shareholders of our predecessor. In addition to the complaint being filed against us, the complaint was also filed against certain of our current and former directors, officers and shareholders and that of our predecessor.

The complaint alleges that instead of proceeding with a prospective buyer who offered superior terms, the former chairman of our predecessor and majority shareholder, agreed to sell our predecessor to its current majority shareholder at a below market price as the result of commercial bribes allegedly paid by our current majority shareholder and Chief Executive Officer to our predecessor’s former chairman. The trial in the case commenced on October 30, 2006, and the jury rendered a verdict in our favor on November 17, 2006. The court followed with a final judgment in our favor on December 20, 2006. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on January 19, 2007. The appeal remains pending.

10

Table of Contents

FRESH DEL MONTE PRODUCE INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) (Unaudited)

10. Litigation (continued)

Class Action Litigation

a. Pineapple Class Actions

On August 2, 2004, a consolidated complaint was filed against two of our subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This consolidated action is brought as a putative class action on behalf of all direct and indirect purchasers of Del Monte Gold ^® pineapples from March 1, 1996 through the present and merges four actions brought by fruit wholesalers and two actions brought by individual consumers. The consolidated complaint alleges claims for: (i) monopolization and attempted monopolization; (ii) restraint of trade; (iii) unfair and deceptive trade practices; and (iv) unjust enrichment. On May 27, 2005, our subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss the indirect and direct purchasers’ claims for unjust enrichment. On June 29, 2005, plaintiffs filed a joint motion for class certification. On February 20, 2008, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification of the indirect purchasers and only granted class certification of the direct purchasers’ claims for monopolization and attempted monopolization which was uncontested by our subsidiaries. Also on February 20, 2008, the Court granted the motion of our subsidiaries to dismiss the direct purchasers’ claims for unjust enrichment and denied as moot the motion to dismiss the indirect purchasers’ state law claims on the basis of the Court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for class certification of the indirect purchasers.

On March 5, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative class action complaint against our subsidiaries in the state court of Tennessee on behalf of consumers who purchased (other than for resale) Del Monte Gold ^® pineapples in Tennessee from March 1, 1996 to May 6, 2003. The complaint alleges violations of the Tennessee Trade Practices Act and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. On February 18, 2005, our subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On May 25, 2006, the court granted the motion in part, dismissing plaintiffs’ claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.

Between March 17, 2004 and March 18, 2004, three alleged individual consumers separately filed putative class action complaints against us and our subsidiaries in the state court of California on behalf of residents of California who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold ^® pineapples between March 1, 1996 and May 6, 2003. On November 9, 2005, the three actions were consolidated under one amended complaint with a single claim for unfair competition in violation of the California Business and Professional Code.

On April 19, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative class action complaint against our subsidiaries in the state court of Florida on behalf of Florida residents who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold ^® pineapples between March 1, 1996 and May 6, 2003. The only surviving claim under the amended complaint alleges violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act relating only to pineapples purchased since April 19, 2000. Our subsidiaries filed an answer to the remaining claim of the amended complaint on October 12, 2006.

On April 29, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative class action complaint against our subsidiaries in the state court of Arizona on behalf of residents of Arizona who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold ^® pineapples between November 1997 and January 2003. The complaint alleges monopolization and attempted monopolization in violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, and unjust enrichment in violation of common law.

On July 25, 2005, our subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss the claim for violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act which was granted by the state court on February 18, 2006. Our subsidiaries filed an answer to the remaining claims of the complaint on October 12, 2006.

On July 2, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative class action which was served on August 24, 2004 against our subsidiaries in the state court of Nevada on behalf of residents of Nevada who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold ^® pineapples between November 1997 and January 2003. The complaint alleges restraint of trade in violation of Nevada statutes, common law monopolization and unjust enrichment. On April 11, 2006, the court granted in part the motion of our subsidiaries to dismiss the complaint dismissing the claims for common law monopolization, unjust enrichment and violation of Nevada’s Unfair Trade Practices Act in its application prior to July 1, 2001. Our subsidiaries filed an answer to the remaining claims of the amended complaint on June 30, 2006.

b. Banana Class Actions

Between July 25, 2005 and August 22, 2005, several plaintiffs served putative class action complaints against us, one of our subsidiaries and several other corporations all in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all direct purchasers of bananas. On November 30, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint alleging that the defendants engaged in a continuing agreement, understanding and conspiracy to restrain trade by artificially raising, fixing and maintaining the prices of, and otherwise restricting the sale of, bananas in the United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act beginning May 1, 1999.

11

Table of Contents

FRESH DEL MONTE PRODUCE INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) (Unaudited)

10. Litigation (continued)

Additionally, between August 8, 2005 and November 10, 2005, Arizona, California, Minnesota, New York, Tennessee and Kansas residents filed two putative class action complaints against us, one of our subsidiaries and several other corporations in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all indirect purchasers of bananas in their respective states. On March 3, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint alleging violations of numerous state antitrust, competition, and unjust enrichment statutes beginning May 1, 1999.

The cases on behalf of the direct purchasers have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The cases on behalf of the indirect purchasers were assigned to the same judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

On May 15, 2007, we reached an agreement with plaintiffs to settle the consolidated direct purchaser cases for a total aggregate payment to plaintiffs of $2.5 million (including attorney’s fees), which was paid during June 2007 and recorded in Cost of products sold in the Consolidated Statements of Income. On November 26, 2007, the Court entered an order and final judgment approving the settlement.

On June 26, 2007, we reached an agreement with plaintiffs to settle the indirect purchaser action by agreeing to make a donation to America’s Second Harvest (also known as The Nation’s Food Bank Network), or a comparable charity, of fruit and/or vegetables with a retail value of $0.8 million within a year from final approval of the settlement agreement and agreeing to pay up to $0.1 million of the plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and costs to be incurred by plaintiffs’ in providing notice to class members of the proposed settlement. On November 21, 2007, the Court entered an order and final judgment approving the settlement. One individual has filed a pro se notice of appeal of the Court’s order and final judgment. On May 8, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal and the settlement became effective. We have paid $0.1 million for the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs. We recorded a liability of $0.3 million as of June 27, 2008 included in Accounts payable and accrued expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet related to donations to charity expected to be provided within the next year. The charges related to attorney’s fees and the donations to charity were recorded in Cost of products sold in the Consolidated Statements of Income.

European Union Antitrust Investigation

On June 2, 2005, one of our German subsidiaries was visited by the antitrust authority of the European Union (“EU”) which is investigating our subsidiary as well as other produce companies for possible violations of the EU’s competition laws. Our subsidiary received several requests for additional information from the EU antitrust authority from February 17, 2006 to May 22, 2007 and has responded fully to the requests. Our subsidiary will continue to cooperate fully with the investigation. On July 23, 2007, our subsidiary received a Statement of Objections from the European Commission regarding the investigation. Statements of Objections were also sent to the other produce companies under investigation. The document concerns banana pricing during the period from 2000 until 2005. From February 4, 2008 to February 6, 2008, the European Commission held an oral hearing on the Statements of Objections. At the hearing, with one exception, all the produce companies under investigation including our subsidiary rejected the findings of the European Commission in the Statements of Objections.

Freight Broker Litigation

In September 1997, a freight broker formerly engaged by one of our non-U.S. subsidiaries filed suit against the subsidiary in Guatemala claiming $1.9 million in damages and in Costa Rica claiming $1.3 million in damages as indemnification for constructive wrongful termination of the general agency agreement between the broker and the subsidiary. Under the agreement, the broker arranged third-party cargo to be booked for carriage on ships owned or chartered by our subsidiary. The Guatemala action has been dismissed for being time barred by the statute of limitations. In the Costa Rica action, the trial court has entered judgment against us in the amount of $0.8 million plus interest and costs. Our subsidiary is appealing this decision. The costs of defense in this action are covered by insurance.

Kunia Well Site

In 1980, elevated levels of certain chemicals were detected in the soil and ground-water at a plantation leased by one of our U.S. subsidiaries in Honolulu, Hawaii (the “Kunia Well Site”). Shortly thereafter, our subsidiary discontinued the use of the Kunia Well Site and provided an alternate water source to area well users and the subsidiary commenced its own voluntary cleanup operation. In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) identified the Kunia Well Site for potential listing on the National Priorities List (“NPL”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended. On December 16, 1994, the EPA issued a final rule adding the Kunia Well Site to the NPL.

12

Table of Contents

FRESH DEL MONTE PRODUCE INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) (Unaudited)

10. Litigation (continued)

On September 28, 1995, our subsidiary entered into an order (the “Order”) with the EPA to conduct the remedial investigation and the feasibility study of the Kunia Well Site. Under the terms of the Order, our subsidiary submitted a remedial investigation report in November 1998 and a final draft feasibility study in December 1999 (which was updated from time to time) for review by the EPA. The EPA approved the remedial investigation report in February 1999 and the feasibility study on April 22, 2003.

As a result of communications with the EPA in 2001, we recorded a charge of $15.0 million in the third quarter of 2001 to increase the recorded liability to the estimated expected future cleanup cost for the Kunia Well Site to $19.1 million. Based on conversations with the EPA in the third quarter of 2002 and consultation with our legal counsel and other experts, we recorded a charge of $7.0 million during the third quarter of 2002 to increase the accrual for the expected future clean-up costs for the Kunia Well Site to $26.1 million.

On September 25, 2003, the EPA issued the Record of Decision (“ROD”). The EPA estimates in the ROD that the remediation costs associated with the clean up of the Kunia Well Site will range from $12.9 million to $25.4 million and will last approximately 10 years. The undiscounted estimates are between $14.8 million and $28.7 million. The undiscounted estimate on which our accrual is based totals $25.8 million and is discounted using a 5.0% rate. As of June 27, 2008, there is $19.6 million included in other noncurrent liabilities and $1.2 million included in accounts payable and accrued expenses for the Kunia well site clean-up. We expect to expend approximately $1.2 million in cash per year for the next five years. Certain portions of the EPA’s estimates have been discounted using a 5% interest rate.

On January 13, 2004, the EPA deleted a portion of the Kunia Well Site (Northeast section) from the NPL. On May 2, 2005, our subsidiary signed a Consent Decree with the EPA for the performance of the clean up work for the Kunia Well Site. On September 27, 2005, the U.S. District Court for Hawaii approved and entered the Consent Decree. Based on findings from remedial investigations at the Kunia Well Site, our subsidiary continues to evaluate with the EPA the clean up work currently in progress in accordance with the Consent Decree.

Other

In addition to the foregoing, we are involved from time to time in various claims and legal actions incident to our operations, both as plaintiff and defendant. In the opinion of management, after consulting with legal counsel, none of these other claims are currently expected to have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial position or our cash flows. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in all of the above matters. At this time, management is not able to evaluate the likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome in any of the above-described matters. Accordingly, management is not able to estimate the range or amount of loss, if any, from any of the above-described matters and no accruals or expenses have been recorded as of June 27, 2008, except as related to the Kunia Well Site and Banana Class Actions.

11. Earnings Per Share

Basic and diluted net income per ordinary share is calculated as follows (U.S. dollars in millions, except share and per share data):

13

Table of Contents

FRESH DEL MONTE PRODUCE INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) (Unaudited)

12. Retirement and Other Employee Benefits

The following table sets forth the net periodic costs (credits) of our defined benefit pension plans and postretirement plan (U.S. dollars in millions):

14

Table of Contents

FRESH DEL MONTE PRODUCE INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) (Unaudited)

13. Business Segment Data

We are principally engaged in one major line of business, the production, distribution and marketing of bananas, other fresh produce and prepared food. Our products are sold in markets throughout the world, with our major producing operations located in North, Central and South America, Asia and Africa.

Our operations are aggregated on the basis of our products; bananas, other fresh produce, prepared food and other products and services. Other fresh produce includes pineapples, melons, tomatoes, strawberries, non-tropical fruit (including grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines, apricots, avocados and kiwis), fresh-cut products and other fruit and vegetables. Prepared food includes prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages, snacks and a poultry and processed meat business. Other products and services includes a third-party ocean freight business, a plastic product and box manufacturing business and a grain business.

We evaluate performance based on several factors, of which gross profit by product and net sales by geographic region are the primary financial measures (U.S. dollars in millions):

15

Table of Contents

FRESH DEL MONTE PRODUCE INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) (Unaudited)

14. Fair Value Measurements

We mitigate the risk of fluctuations in currency exchange rates on our results of operations and financial condition by entering into foreign currency cash flow hedges. We account for the fair value of the related forward contracts as either an asset in other current assets or a liability in accrued expenses. We adopted SFAS No. 157 for assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of December 29, 2007, the first day of our 2008 year. We use an income approach to value our outstanding foreign currency cash flow hedges. An income approach consists of a discounted cash flow model that takes into account the present value of future cash flows under the terms of the contracts using current market information as of the measurement date such as foreign currency spot and forward rates. Additionally, an element of default risk based on observable inputs was built into the fair value calculation based on the provisions of SFAS No. 157. We expect that of the $14.9 million net liability outstanding, $12.7 million of the amount outstanding will be transferred to earnings in 2008 and the remaining in 2009 along with the earnings effect of the related forecasted transaction.

The following table provides a summary of the fair values of assets and liabilities measured on a recurring basis under SFAS No. 157:

Prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 157, the fair value of these hedges was a net liability of $6.2 million as of December 28, 2007, substantially all of which will be transferred to earnings during 2008.

In estimating our fair value disclosures for financial instruments, we use the following methods and assumptions:

Cash and cash equivalents: The carrying amount of these items approximates fair value due to the high credit standing of the financial institutions holding these items and their liquid nature.

Trade accounts receivable and other accounts receivable, net: The carrying value reported in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for these items is net of allowances for doubtful accounts which includes a degree of counterparty non-performance risk.

Accounts payable and other current liabilities: The carrying value reported in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for these items approximates their fair value, which is the likely amount for which the liability with short settlement periods would be transferred to a market participant with a similar credit standing as the Company.

Capital lease obligations: The carrying value of our capital lease obligations approximates their fair value based on current interest rates which contain an element of default risk.

Long-term debt: The carrying value of our long-term debt approximates their fair value since they bear interest at variable rates or fixed rates which contain an element of default risk.

16

Table of Contents