Information on this page includes:
Message from Richard Johnson, President of Hawaii Tropical Fruit Growers
USDA Proposed Rule Response from Richard Johnson
Summary of Proposed Rule from The Federal Register
Link to Federal Register July 26, 2006 wording
Letter from Representative Neil Abercrombie to Hawaii Tropical Fruit Growers
Re: Video Conference Held Thursday August 24, 2006
Tips for Submitting Comments to the USDA
MESSAGE FROM RICHARD JOHNSON,
PRESIDENT OF HAWAII TROPICAL FRUIT GROWERS
Threat to Hawaii Tropical Fruit Industry
Recently the U.S. Department of Agriculture posted a “Proposed Rule” which, if approved, amends the USDA import rules and regulations to allow irradiated lychee, longan, mango, mangosteen, pineapple and rambutan to be imported to the United States from Thailand. This Proposed Rule is clearly a threat to Hawaii’s rapidly growing tropical fruit industry and HTFG is and will continue to provide input the USDA regarding the impact of this rule. Furthermore, some of the analysis provided in the Propose Rule is faulty and needs to be corrected before the final evaluation.
Recently Hawaii Congressman Abercrombie convened a video conference between Hawaii tropical fruit growers, Farm Bureau and labor representatives and USDA representatives in Washington D.C. I, along with other HTFG members and Board Members participated in this conference and had the opportunity to point out some of the errors and omissions in USDA’s analysis of the Proposed Rule. It became clear during the video conference that written input to the Proposed Rule is crucial! Two very important factors in amending or disapproving the Proposed Rule are the number of people submitting written comments on the Proposed Rule and the substance of the comments.
USDA will receive written comments, by either letter or email up to September 25, 2006.
I encourage all HTFG Members and any other concerned citizens of Hawaii to provide written comments to USDA prior to September 25th.
For your convenience, this HTFG website provides the following:
1) A copy of the Proposed Rule
2) Instructions on how to provide comments
3) A copy of my comments on the Proposed Rule.
****Please feel free to use all or any portion of my comments in your response to USDA.
Remember, the number of comments received by USDA from individuals and organizations is important and can have a material impact on this Proposed Rule.
Furthermore, with Representative Abercrombie’s continuing support we can move the critical examination of this Proposed Rule from the strictly technical aspects to the political and economic aspects – particularly the impact on our Hawaii tropical fruit industry!
Thank you for your support on this critical matter!
Aloha,
Richard Johnson
President, Hawaii Tropical Fruit Growers
USDA PROPOSED RULE RESPONSE
FROM RICHARD JOHNSON
I am Richard C. Johnson, a resident of Papaikou, Hawaii. I am President of Hawaii Tropical Fruit Growers, a Hawaii state-wide association of over 150 growers, packers and distributors of exotic tropical fruit. I am also owner-manager of Onomea Orchards, a family owned and operated tropical fruit farm of 42 acres located on the Big Island of Hawaii. Our primary crops are rambutan, longan, starfruit, mangosteen and litchi.
I would like to submit comments on the USDA Proposed Rule regarding importation of irradiated fruit from Thailand (Docket ID: APHIS – 2006-0040). In the text below, I have quoted sections of the Proposed Rule with my comments following each quoted section.
Background:
“We have not prepared a comprehensive pest risk analysis for this proposed rule, as we normally do when determining whether to allow the importation of fruits or vegetables under the regulations. When we prepare a comprehensive pest risk analysis for a commodity, one part of
the analysis examines in detail the likelihood that the plant pests for which the commodity could serve as a host would be introduced into the United States via the importation of that commodity, the likelihood that those pests would become established if they were introduced, and the damage that could result from their introduction or establishment. This helps us to determine which plant pests pose a risk that makes mitigation measures beyond port-of-entry inspection necessary. However, since irradiation at the 400 gray dose is approved to neutralize all plant pests of the order Insecta, except pupae and adults of the family Lepidoptera, we did not consider it necessary to undertake a detailed analysis of the risks posed by any plant pests that fall into the category, since the risks for all these pests would be mitigated through the irradiation treatment. For the plant pests that we identified that are not approved for treatment with the 400 gray dose, we have analyzed what specific mitigations may be necessary given the risks they pose and the likelihood that these risks would be effectively mitigated by inspection.”
JOHNSON COMMENT:
As discussed further below under “Litchi” and “Mango”, the analysis regarding the low likelihood that plant pests could be imported and established is incorrect, particularly as it applies to the State of Hawaii. Since a non-comprehensive pest risk analysis has resulted in conclusions that are incorrect and could result in foreign pests being introduced into U.S. food crops causing serious damage to an existing industry in Hawaii, I strongly urge USDA to require a complete pest risk analysis for this Proposed Rule.
Litchi:
“However, the 400 gray dose is not approved to treat the fungal pest, Peronophythora litchii. This pest can cause litchi fruit to drop prematurely from their trees. We believe that most litchi fruit that are infected with Peronophythora litchii would be culled prior to importation into the United States; trained harvesters, packinghouse personnel, and plant quarantine inspectors can easily detect the distinctive symptoms of the disease on fruit. Litchi that are infected with Peronophythora litchii but are not symptomatic may not be culled, but the likelihood that Peronophythora litchii would then be introduced into the United States via the few fruit that may escape detection is very low, because the spores are transmitted by water. This means that for Peronophythora litchii to be introduced into the United States via an infected litchi fruit, the fruit would have to be incompletely consumed and discarded in a place where the pest could be transmitted to a litchi production area through moving water.”
JOHNSON COMMENT:
The conclusion that there is a very low probability of this fungus being introduced into the United States is incorrect, particularly in the case of Hawaii. Litchi trees are very common backyard trees in Hawaii. Also, many trees have been inadvertently propagated in roadside areas and other “jungle” areas. Introduction of this pest to Hawaii from infected Thai fruit is very likely for the following reasons: 1) Visual inspection for fungal infection is far from fool-proof, particularly if the infection is in the early stages. 2) The likelihood that incompletely consumed fruit would be discarded in a yard or other area with a litchi tree in Hawaii is not insignificant. Furthermore, the backyard litchi trees and litchi trees in the wild provide a likely vector for this fungus to infect the commercial litchi orchards in Hawaii. 3) The majority of the commercial litchi growing areas in Hawaii are in high rainfall areas such as the Hilo area which has an annual average rainfall of approximately 130 inches which would increase the likelihood of the spread of this fungus. The non-comprehensive pest risk assessment applied to this Proposed Rule lead to an incorrect conclusion regarding the probability of the introduction and spread of this fungus in litchi growing areas of the United States. I strongly urge USDA to require a complete pest risk analysis for this Proposed Rule. Furthermore, I strongly urge USDA to modify the rule to exclude Thai irradiated fruit from importation to the State of Hawaii.
Mango:
“Irradiation with a 400 gray dose is approved to treat all of the insect pests, but not the fungal plant pest Phomopsis mangiferae. We are not proposing to require any mitigation other than inspection for Phomopsis mangiferae. However, we believe that Phomopsis mangiferae is unlikely to be introduced into the United States via the importation of mangoes for consumption. The pest is specific to mangoes and is spread only via the seed of the mango. For the pest to spread, fungal spores from the seed must be dispersed at a time when susceptible tissue is available; thus, dispersal only occurs when infected seed is used in mango production. If infected fruit is consumed and the seed is discarded as waste, the infected fruit does not serve as a pathway for introduction. Discarded fruit could create a possible source of inoculum that could provide the means for introduction, but the likelihood that infected mangoes will reach these habitats is low because (1) the host range is limited to mango; (2) the portion of the total number of mango shipments from Thailand that is expected to be transported to mango-producing areas in California, Florida, Hawaii, or Texas is small; and (3) the likelihood of fruit being discarded in mango orchards at an appropriate time is likewise very low. For these reasons, we are not proposing any measures beyond inspection to mitigate the risk associated with this plant pest.”
JOHNSON COMMENT:
The conclusion that there is a very low probability of this fungus being introduced into the United States is incorrect, particularly in the case of Hawaii. Mango trees are very common backyard trees in Hawaii. Also, many trees have been inadvertently propagated in roadside areas and other “jungle” areas. Introduction of this pest to Hawaii from infected Thai fruit is very likely for the following reasons: 1) Visual inspection for fungal infection is far from fool-proof, particularly if the infection is in the early stages. 2) The likelihood that infected fruit being discarded in backyard compost piles or rubbish piles or adjacent to wild mango trees in Hawaii is likely and the backyard trees and trees in the wild provide a vector to the commercial mango orchards in Hawaii. The non-comprehensive pest risk assessment applied to this Proposed Rule lead to an incorrect conclusion regarding the probability of the introduction and spread of this fungus in mango growing areas of the United States. I strongly urge USDA to require a complete pest risk analysis for this Proposed Rule. Furthermore, I strongly urge USDA to modify the rule to exclude Thai irradiated fruit from importation to the State of Hawaii.
Mangosteen:
“APHIS has identified 11 potential quarantine pests that could be introduced into the United States via the importation of mangosteen from Thailand, all of which are insect pests. The pests are listed below, with order and family name following their scientific names in parentheses.
Bactrocera carambola (Diptera: Tephritidae).
Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae).
Bactrocera papayae (Diptera: Tephritidae).
Coccus viridis (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Coccidae).
Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Diaspididae).
Cataenococcus hispidus (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
Dysmicoccus neobrevipes (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
Paracoccus interceptus (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
Planococcus lilacinus (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
Planococcus minor (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
Pseudococcus cryptus (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
Irradiation with a 400 gray dose is approved as a treatment for all of these pests.”
JOHNSON COMMENT:
The Plant Risk Assessment to allow Hawaii-grown mangosteen to be sold to the U.S. mainland has been in process with the USDA since 1998 and this PRA as well as a number of other Hawaii-grown tropical fruits has not yet been approved. The Hawaii PRAs have been in process for over 8 years without approval. This Proposed Rule is projected to be approved in one to two years. It appears that the Thai request for importation of irradiated fruit is being given much higher priority than requests from the State of Hawaii. I urge USDA to not give this request any higher priority than has been given to requests from Hawaii and to process it with the same attention and urgency that has been given to the Hawaii requests.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
“In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, which is set out below, regarding the effects of this proposed rule on small entities. We do not currently have all the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, we are inviting comments concerning potential effects. In particular, we are interested in determining the degree to which imported fruits from Thailand would be expected to displace fruits imported from other countries or fruits produced domestically.”
JOHNSON COMMENT:
Tropical fruit production is a rapidly growing portion of Hawaii’s diversified agriculture initiative. Per the USDA NASS reports, tropical fruit production has been growing steadily over the last 10 years with the 2005 reported production value of $2.7m from 235 farms. With the exception of pineapple, tropical fruit farming in Hawaii is virtually 100% small family owned and operated farms. As such this is an industry of “small entities”. This Proposed Rule, if approved, will have a profound effect on the many small farmers in Hawaii. I urge USDA to complete the comprehensive analysis of the effect on small entities prior to any approval of the Proposed Rule.
U.S. Production and Imports
“Production of longan, litchi, mango, and rambutan is a fraction of pineapple production in Hawaii and is directed to local markets.”
JOHNSON COMMENT:
This is an incorrect statement. The vast majority of Hawaii longan and rambutan and, to a lesser degree, litchi, is sent to the U.S. mainland. On the order of 85% of Hawaii’s longan and rambutan and on the order of 50% of litchi are sent to the mainland. I encourage USDA to do further research on the ultimate markets for Hawaii-grown tropical fruits in order that the impact of imports can correctly be evaluated.
Effects on Small Entities
“Based on the data available to APHIS, it does not appear that domestic production of litchi, longan, mango, mangosteen, pineapple, and rambutan competes with imports of these fruits. Domestic production is generally destined for the local fresh market. Thus, the imports
from Thailand are unlikely to substantially affect these markets. Additionally, imports from Thailand are not likely to increase the overall level of imports. It is more reasonable to assume that they would substitute for imports from other countries, given that demand for these specialty fruits is likely satiated at current levels. APHIS welcomes public comment on these potential effects.”
JOHNSON COMMENT:
As discussed above, Hawaii’s production of longan, litchi and rambutan is generally destined for the U.S. mainland market, not local markets. Imports from Thailand will substantially affect sales of the Hawaii fruits. Hawaii has been increasing its production of these fruits year-to-year. Additional acreage is being planted every year and at present only 60% of the trees planted have reached bearing age. Hawaii has finally reached a volume which allows sales to expand from the traditional market segment for these fruits, the ethnic Asian grocery stores and produce markets on the U.S. mainland, to other market segments such as gourmet grocery stores, and, eventually to the mainstream grocery chains and produce markets on the U.S. mainland. Allowing Thai imports which are anticipated to be at a much lower price than Hawaii-grown due to the very low costs of production in Thailand, will take away much of the market that Hawaii growers have been struggling to build over the last 10 to 15 years. The U.S. mainland market is not saturated at current levels. The potential growth of consumption outside of the ethnic Asian market segment is large and should Thai producers decide to market to these segments, the levels of imports of these fruits to the U.S. could increase substantially. The economic impact of this Proposed Rule on U.S. Hawaii growers as well as on the overall level of imports should not be ignored or based on incorrect assumptions. I encourage USDA to do further research on these impacts and to accurately characterize them in the Proposed Rule.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED RULE
from the Federal Register
SUMMARY:
We are proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation into the United States of litchi, longan, mango, mangosteen, pineapple, and rambutan from Thailand. As a condition of entry, these fruits would have to be grown in production areas that are registered with and monitored by the national plant
protection organization of Thailand, treated with irradiation in Thailand at a dose of 400 gray for plant pests of the class Insecta, except pupae and adults of the order Leipdoptera, and subject to inspection. The fruits would also have to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that the fruit had been treated with irradiation in Thailand. In the case of litchi, the additional declaration would also state that the fruit had been inspected and found to be free of Peronophythora litchii, a fungal pest of litchi. This action would allow for the importation of litchi, longan, mango, mangosteen, pineapple, and rambutan from Thailand into the United States while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States.
TO SEE THE FULL CONTENT OF THE PROPOSED RULE, GO TO Federal Register July 26, 2006
LETTER FROM REPRESENTATIVE NEIL ABERCROMBIE
TO HAWAII TROPICAL FRUIT GROWERS
RE: VIDEO CONFERENCE HELD THURSDAY AUGUST 24, 2006
Dear Tropical Fruit Growers:
I appreciate your interest in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Proposed Rule that would allow the importation of certain fruits from Thailand. This is an issue of vital significance to me and to Hawaii.
Our fruit industry is not just important to Hawaii economically; it is part of the fabric of our culture. Hawaii’s fruit industry enjoys a proud tradition that encompasses growers, workers and businesses. I believe that the Proposed Rule could threaten this rapidly growing industry and I am prepared to do everything I can to defend it.
As you may know, I recently convened a video conference meeting between growers and labor representatives in Hilo, Honolulu and USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s decision-makers in Washington, D.C. The tropical fruit industry was well represented at this meeting and vigorously presented the industry’s case.
The meeting was very productive because the people most affected by this rule were able to speak face to face with the people who actually drafted it and will decide whether to implement it. I can assure you that they heard us loud and clear. As a group, we undoubtedly left an imprint on the minds of the decision makers.
During the videoconference a USDA official incorrectly stated that the meeting would not become part of the “official record.” The General Counsel’s office at the USDA has assured me that the agency’s policy is to take notes of what is said at the meeting and prepare a memorandum including these comments that will become a part of the official record. In fact, the USDA’s congressional relations liaison had an audio recorder taping the entire video conference. Please be assured that this meeting was in fact “on the record,” contrary to may have been stated at the meeting.
The video conference was an important first step. Now that we know what issues are involved and the weaknesses in the USDA’s research and conclusions, I can work hard with all of you to fight this Proposed Rule. It is vital that as many of you as possible submit your written comments to the USDA stating your objections and concerns. To this end, I am sending you the handout that was distributed at the meeting with tips for submitting comments that include where to send your comments and what your comments should address. The USDA has also suggested that if you have any comments about the science aspects of this rule, you include any technical findings you have that support your position.
I am prepared to work closely with all of you to protect Hawaii’s growing tropical fruit industry. I would appreciate if you would also send a copy of your comments to my office so that I can stay up to date with what concerns you most. I trust that if you have any questions or concerns about this process you will not hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely,
Neil Abercrombie
Member of Congress
TIPS for SUMITTING COMMENTS to the USDA
from Representative Neil Abercrombie
NOTE: To view other comments when you are on the regulations website, go to the Docket ID column on the left and choose APHIS-2006-0040 to view public comments.
SUBMITTING A COMMENT TO THE USDA
PROPOSED RULE No. APHIS-2006-0040
A Proposed Rule is simply a beginning step in the Agency rulemaking process. At this time, interested people may submit a comment to the USDA/APHIS about this Proposed Rule. The USDA will respond to these comments in the body of a final rule, should they decide to proceed to this stage. The USDA will accept comments until September 25, 2006.
You may comment using the following methods:
FEDERAL E-RULEMAKING PORTAL
o Go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the “Search Regulations and Federal Actions” menu choose “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.”
o In the Docket ID column, choose APHIS-2006-0040 to submit or view public comments.
o If you need help using this website the “User Tips” link is helpful
BY US MAIL
o Send 4 copies of your comments to the following address:
Docket No. APHIS-2006-0040
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS
Station 3A-03.8
4700 River Road Unit 118
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238
o Preface your comments by referring to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0040
PROCESS
o After the “Notice and Comment” period, USDA/APHIS will review the comments and determine whether to proceed with final rulemaking. If they proceed, they will then prepare a “Final Rule Work Plan” and label the rule “Significant” or “Not Significant” based on the potential impact it will have on the economy, interference with another agency’s plans and a number of other considerations.
o If the Proposed Rule is labeled “Significant,” the Office of Management and Budget must review the rule. Then, a Final Rule is drafted, is again reviewed by the USDA, published in the Federal Register and usually becomes effective within 30 days.
o The entire rulemaking process can take one to two years or more.
SUGGESTIONS
o Although a Proposed Rule is at the beginning stage of the rulemaking process, a notice of proposed rulemaking must be taken seriously. The fact that an idea has publicly appeared as an agency proposal means that it has received close attention from the staff and senior agency officials.
o The comment process can and often does produce significant modifications. However, the chances that comments will create a complete turnaround are not great.
Comments which broadly condemn the idea in sweeping terms are generally not helpful.
The most useful comments are those, which focus on particular problems.
These include:
• Comments suggesting weaknesses or difficulties of specific language;
• Comments acquainting the staff with some possibly unforeseen practical consequences arising out of the idea;
• Comments supplying facts and numbers about the industry which may have been overlooked;
• Comments suggesting alternative language; or
• Comments seeking waivers or exceptions to deal with discrete issues.
Please feel free to contact Amy O’Donnell in the Washington, D.C. office of Representative Neil Abercrombie at (202) 226-1681or Amy.Odonnell@mail.house.gov if you have any further questions or require help with this process.
Honolulu Star Bullitien :
http://starbulletin.com/2006/08/07/news/story04.html