In Name Of Science? The most frequently asserted argument defending the citrus canker eradication program is to claim that it is based on science. Agricultural Commissioner Bronson referred several times to the so called "Gottwald Report" trying to justifying the protocol to eradicate all citrus trees in a radius of 1900 feet from an infected tree, calling it scientific proof. LIZ COMPTON'S INSULTLiz Compton, "Public information Director" of Florida Department of Agriculture wrote to Pablo Espinosa:
2/ There is no data that the mentioned countries (or any other country) suffer from economic disadvantage by not eradicating. You mention Brazil. Not the best argument. It still would be better if the Department would follow the Brazil example. They employ chemical treatments to prevent canker (copper oxyclorid) and only one of the 26 counties of Brazil (Sao Paolo}( and in a small Wester area of Minas Gerals) eradicate, if it is unavoidable. Only in a 30 ft radius around an infected tree. And for this program no public money is used. They are more concerned with CVC (Citrus Variegated Chlorosis) than with canker Argentina has been living with citrus canker for 50 years. They experienced occasionally in some citrus species, about a 5% fruit drop, but no weakening of trees. Despite "living with canker" they export juice and fresh citrus with profit. Their representative on the Symposium in 2000 declared that "canker is not more costly than other citrus diseases and pests." Your Department is referring to Dr.Gottwald's research about the 1900 ft radius eradication theory. You should consider Dr.Gottwalds's statement that "Even when eradication is achieved there is a large possibility for introduction of Xac (canker) in the future." "Introduction of the disease is a fairly regular occurrence." TREE OF SOCIETY OR THE TREES OF SOCIETY? Letter to the Governor: NO PLANNING JUST OBSESSION
THERE IS NO PLANNING IN FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
The lack of planning in the Department of Agriculture is
responsible for the current spread of the citrus canker epidemic.
No sound protection plan was ever considered in 1910 and following
appearances of the disease.
The lack of professionalism in proper recognition of problems that
may arise when dilettantes are at the steering wheel makes it
impossible to establish and follow a sound state plan.
When an unprofessional governmental body is too weak to resist and
thereby neglects to study the situation and establish a sound plan
for solving devastating problems, the whole scenario must finally
result in disaster.
This happens when leaders responsible for the public good consider
only the interests of a particular sector of the economy or merely
an influential fraction of such a sector.
The result is like the present inefficient, public money squandering program: obsession with forcing eradication against the will and trampling on the constitutional rights of hundreds of thousand homeowners, forcing it against the real interest of the citrus industry. They fight Court orders. They trumpet untrue reasoning and entirely false propaganda. There was a slight ray of hope recently when news spread that the Agricultural Department has a so called "Plan B", a policy consideration for a scenario should the eradication law be changed. There was hope that economists in the Department worked out an alternative plan, despite the obsession of their wrongly influenced leaders. I asked for information from Dr. Richard D. Gaskella, who is the leading spokesman (and prompter?) of agricultural secretary Bronson. His response demonstrates that these hopes were in vain: "This acknowledges receipt of your e-mail message. I am not sure what you are referring to in reference to a Citrus Canker Plan B. The FDACS and USDA position is to eradicate citrus canker. The nature of citrus canker (a bacterial pathogen) coupled with the scope of citrus production in Florida does not lend itself well to any type of control program. Sincerely, CHARLES H. BRONSON COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE Richard Gaskalla Director, Division of Plant Industry Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services."
It is unfortunate to have confirmed that the Department still has
no alternative plans to offer, not even considering another
possible road other than which a short-sighted interest group
dictates.
Peter Harsany, D.Sc. (doctor in agricultural economics) Summer address: 3300 DeFalaise #603 Montreal Que, H3R 2E5 514-7385255 Groves subject to 1,900-foot ruleIt is important that I respond to incorrect information included
in a letter to the editor published on July 28. Many people are
sacrificing their trees in the effort to rid Florida of the
economically devastating citrus canker disease, and it is important
that they have all the facts. Charles H. Bronson
MR BRONSON'S EQUIVOCATION TO ORLANDO
(Response to a letter from Agriculture Department Secretary Bronson posted in the 7/29/02 issue of the Orlando Sentinel) In Mr.Bronson's latest "open letter" sent July 29
to the Orlando Sentinel, for the purpose of
defending his obsession for the citrus canker
eradication program I could not find a trace
of a single truth:
(Bronson's statements are in quotes. Harsany's are the bullets) "The eradication of citrus canker is necessary to protect thousands of residential trees not yet impacted, as well as Florida's $ 9 billion commercial citrus industry."
"Dr.Jack Whiteside is patently wrong when he states that
canker doesn't do much to the tree itself. Whiteside 's comments
are little relevant to Asian strain citrus canker, which is what
we are now battling."
"Another major threat of citrus canker is the possibility of
a state-wide quarantine that would prohibit the shipment of fresh
fruit from this state's most important economic
contributors."
The role of the Department of Agriculture is not to write fiction,
but to plan and organize a sound citrus policy, learning from
South American and other citrus growing countries.
Peter Harsany D.Sc. (doctor of agricultural economics); 8/6/02 SAVE THE CITRUS INDUSTRY AND THE TREES IN HOME GARDENS!The masterfully orchestrated propaganda of Florida Department of Agriculture planted in the press and hypnotized to the public asserts that a 9.1 billion dollar (!) citrus industry can be saved only by eradicating practically all citrus trees in private gardens. This propaganda campaign, full of lies is so successful, that there are many homeowners who say that they are proud to sacrifice their trees for the common good - to save the citrus industry and the entire economy of Florida. Soon the citrus industry may organize demonstrations, marching home owners in front of the Capitol in Tallahassee with placards and loudly shouting: "CUT DOWN OUR TREES! CUT DOWN OUR TREES!" One of the basic components in this propaganda is the lie of a 9.1 billion dollar industry. It is untrue that there is a 9.1 billion dollar citrus industry in Florida. The true value of the industry is approximately one billion dollars, representing the crop value per annum, and not the absurd figure of 9 times that. The 9.1 billion dollar figure is a fantasy metaphor, the result of a computer program which only attempts to estimate the economic impact of the industry. It is an imaginary and totally unrealistic figure. It is also untrue that the entire citrus industry is endangered by citrus canker. Over 90% of the industry, processing fruit for juice is not affected, by getting blemishes on the skin of the fruit. Sensitive is only the fresh fruit growing sector of the industry, about 1/10th of it. This sector sells about 100 million dollars worth of crop per year.
If the Department would talk only about a 100 million dollar
industry that is far not as impressive as talking about a claimed
and non existing 9.1 billion dollar citrus industry. It is evident
that the Agricultural Department is obsessed with forcing the
execution of the eradication program, squandering millions of
dollars of public money, and that they totally neglect the real
task: to keep the fresh fruit growing groves free of canker by
applying more effective alternative methods.
The Department missed it's opportunity to work out a constructive plan to prevent the spread of canker when it was first observed, several decades ago. Now there is no more time to be lost.They should act now. It must be acknowledged that the eradication program is not the right way to control the disease. Economists in the Department can determine the cost of the eradication program plus the damages caused to homeowners comparing it with expenses of applying a more effective alternative method in order to save the industry. To employ alternative methods of saving the fresh fruit growing section of the industry will call for expensive initial investments by the grove owners. The annual cost of chemical treatments may cut into their profits. But THEE IS NO OTHER WAY TO SAVE AND KEEP THE BUSINESS I quote from the transcript of the Citrus Canker Symposium held in Fort Pierce, Fl. in 2000: "Adding copper to one normal spray application would cost about $5.64/acre. Two additional sprays would cost $53.44/acre ($11.28/acre materials plus $42.16 per acre application cost). The total additional estimated cost would be about $59/acre. Cost of additional air blast spray equipment, from one single additional sprayer to a whole system, would run $23,000 to $68,000. Windbreaks, depending on if you had 10 to 40 acres, and associated lost revenue would be about $45 to $65 per acre." The widely publicized claim, that if halting eradication 120,000 workers will lose their jobs is without any base. The number of workers employed in the fresh fruit growing section is 16,706 (calculated for full time employment )- not 120,000. There is no indication that they may lose their jobs. On the contrary, if the required preventive measures are taken more employees will be needed. It is no wonder that short-sighted representatives of the industry are scared off by the high initial investments needed to prepare for preventive measures and by the higher production costs what they wish to elude by pressing the Government to enforce a program which does not involve financially the industry but is funded by the public.
I wish to emphasize that eradication - although causing no
financial burden to the industry leaves them seriously vulnerable.
The fact has been neglected that even the ambiguous theory (labelled
with Dr.Gottwald's name) to cut every tree in a radius of 1900
feet from an infected tree is claimed to be only 95% effective. It
was also not taken into consideration that trees still can be
infected by birds, insects, several non citrus canker hosting
plants, human factors and maybe even by citrus leaf miners.
It has been recently revealed by prominent microbiologist, professor Chester Himel of the University of Georgia that the so called "Gottwald Report" is basically erroneous. That undermines any scientific justification for the eradication program. The most authentic criticism comes however from Dr.Gottwald himself. I quote his own words: "The concept has been that if we do any testing at all, they're only very preliminary, and the true field testing would then have to go someplace like Brazil." (Citrus Canker Symposium, 2000) The one sided and obsessive handling of the problem by the Department is a catastrophe to the industry and homeowners alike. It is imperative to employ preventive measures, as in most citrus growing countries of the world. This was discussed at the International Citrus Canker Research Workshop held in Fort Pierce in June of 2000. Thoroughly analylizing such protocols employed in Argentina and Brazil. However, not only Argentina and Brazil, but also Chile, China, Spain, Egypt, Italy, The Bahamas, Texas. and several other countries are employing chemical treatments as well.
Somehow it would appear that Mr. Bronson has never heard of this.
Otherwise it is a deliberate lie to deny it, which is what he is
doing in his speeches and open letters. As he denied the
effectiveness of chemical treatments, he picked copper spray out
of many proven chemicals and dealt with a ridiculous scare tactic
that "it would create an environmental nightmare for the
state's aquifer and animal life". He must certainly know that
copper spray has been used for over a century in vineyards with no
harm to the environment. Such a spray is directed to the plants.
Chemicals directed to the ground, like weed killers, pesticides,
fertilizers could be more susceptible to penetrate into the soil,
but have no measurable effect on the aquifer.
It is inexcusable that the Department is forcing an ineffective
program that has absolutely no scientific basis and only delays a
proper policy. This program seriously hurts the industry and robs
private homeowners.
CANKER ADVANCES DAY BY DAY AND THREATENS THE UNPREPARED, UNPROTECTED GROWERS. BUT THE DEPARTMENT CONTINUES TO SPEND DOLLARS ON COURT COSTS, AND WASTES MORE PUBLIC MONEY ON AN INEFFECTIVE PROGRAM TO KILL HEALTHY TREES. CONSTRUCTIVE ACTION IS NEEDED NOW.
These are my suggestions:
1) STOP ERADICATION NOW.
All eradication activity should be stopped, including the cutting
down of infected trees. It is costly and ineffective.
2)FULLY COMPENSATE HOME OWNERS Homeowners who have already lost their trees should be fairly and fully compensated. 3)LET COMMERIAL GROVES AND HOMEOWNERS HANDLE ERADICATION DECISIONS The decision whether to cut down trees in commercial groves should be left to the owners and carried out at their own expense, as in Brazil. Homeowners can make their own decisions should they have an infected tree. They may choose to keep the tree and enjoy the fruit which is only blemished. Professor Whitehead claims that these trees will recover, since canker is a self eliminating disease. 4)EDUCATE GROVE OWNERS AND HOME OWNERS It should be the Department's duty to educate the grove owners as well as advising homeowners about methods of prevention. This would include introducing and recommending chemical treatments. 5)REORGANIZE THE DOA Some reorganization within the Department will be needed: the use of qualified personnel in order to assist and advise growers in the field, especially the 10% of the industry who grow citrus for sale and export. 6)PLAN TO CHANGE THE DIRECYIO OF FARMING Elaborate planning activity is required to eventually change the direction of farming from fresh fruit sales to juice production. This is especially important if the cost of applying preventative treatments makes selling the fresh fruit unprofitable. Planning is also needed in order to solve the problems of packing houses during this transition period. 7)IMPLEMENT TAX POLICY A kind of taxation policy to be implemented in connection with changes in production, including appropriate tax breaks to assist, if necessary, during the above mentioned transition. 8)INTRODUCE CANKER-RESISTANT NURSERY STOCK The Department's active participation will be needed in the introduction of canker resistant nursery stock. Initiatives should be worked out in order to achieve only canker free groves, growing canker resistant trees in the future.
Sincerely,
Peter Harsany,D.Sc., (doctor in agricultural economics); 6/26/02
DR. HARSANY'S SUGGESTION ABOUT THE CITRUS CANKER PROBLEM - In RESPONSE TO SENATOR BILL POSEY'S QUESTION:
Dear Senator,
After reading my "open letter" to Mr.Bronson you inquired
about my suggestion in solving the citrus canker problem. The solution
is more complex than could be briefly presented in a letter. I will
try to do my best, since I received my Diploma of Agricultural
Economics in "agricultural policy" and my past works were
closely connected with such topics. Here is a short and rough list of
my suggestions:
1/All eradication activity (being costly and ineffective) should be
stopped, including cutting infected trees. 2/Homeowners
who have already lost their trees should be fully compensated.
3/The decision to cut down trees in commercial groves should be left to the owners and at their own expense. (Like in Brazil). Homeowners can make their own decisions if they have an infected tree. They may choose to keep it and enjoy the fruit which is only blemished. Professor Whiteside claims that the trees will recover again, since canker is a self eliminating disease. 4/It should be the Department's duty to educate the grove owners as well as advising the homeowners about methods of prevention, including, introducing and recommending chemical treatments. 5/Some reorganization will be needed in the Department: to have and use qualified personnel to assist and advise the growers in the field, (especially the 10% of the industry who grow citrus for sale, exporting the fruit.) 6/Elaborate planning activity is required to eventually change the direction of farming from the sale of fresh fruit to juice production, when the cost of applying preventive treatments make selling fresh fruits unprofitable. Elaborate planning will be needed to solve the problems of the packing houses in such transition period.
7/A kind of taxation policy to be implemented in connection with
changes of production, including appropriate tax breaks to assist if
necessary, in the above mentioned transition.
8/The Department's active participation will be needed in the introduction of canker resistant nursery stock. Initiatives should be worked out to achieve only canker free groves in the future. Sincerely, Peter Harsany, D.Sc. (doctor in agricultural economics), posted 6/14/02
Orange
trees are not the only citrus canker hosts
|
| White Sapote (Casimiora edulis) more popular in Mexico and South |
| Geijera multyiflorum. |
| Mock orange (Murraya paniculata). A common hedge plant. Murraya koenigi |
| Triphasia trifolia from Southeast Asia |
| Platydesma spathulata - in Hawaii. |
| Diosme ericoides |
| Wax flower (erosteimon breviflorus} |
| Correa, Boronia and Crowea. |
There are more reasons that eradication does not kill canker. Birds and bees can spread the bacteria regardless of the 1900 feet tree killing activity.
Letter to Miami-Dade Commissioners
Dear Commissioner,
Soon you will have to make a decision to join Broward and Palm Beach Counties legal teams to fight the citrus canker legislation. Please do not be influenced by the Bronson-Gaskalla propaganda, as it appears in several newspapers.
I wish to respond one-by-one to the arguments published by the Department:
1/ IT IS A LIE that Florida has a 9.3 billion dollar citrus industry. The total value of one year's citrus crop is 1.1 billion dollars and not 9.3 billion dollars. Actually, this untrue figure is supposed to represent the "economic impact" of the industry in the State's economy. It originates , of a kind of computer program, resulting in the absurdity of being near 9 times the true value of the citrus crop.
2/ IT IS A LIE that the entire citrus industry is endangered by canker: actually more than 90% of the groves, processing the fruit (for juice) are not affected by canker, causing only blemishes on the skin of the fruits.
3/ IT IS A LIE that the industry can get rid of the epidemic if
all healthy citrus trees are killed within a 1900
foot radius of an infected tree.
Bronson wrote in a newspaper that "scientific
proof justifies the 1900 feet cuttings: The data
from this research (the Gottwald report) has been
peer-reviewd and confirmed by scientists around
the word. There is nothing questionable about
this data."
Is Mr. Bronson so naive that he believes that
only one field test can be scientific proof?
Is he so naive that he believes that "peer review"
(reading a piece of paper) is equivalent to repeated
research in the field?
Is he so naive to believe that if the findings
of this theory (even if it were acceptable) conclude
that it can only be 95% effective, is enough to
stop an epidemic? Mr.Bronson is perhaps truly
naive.
Regarding complaints about squandering public
money for the program he wrote in the newspapers
that it is not so: Florida does not pay all the
expenses. It is shared with the US Department
of Agriculture.
Is this not all public money? It is to be mentioned
that when Jack Haire wrote about that in the Bradenton
Herald, Mr. Gaskalla argued that Jack Haire did
not offer scientific data to refute the Gottwald
report's findings.
Such kind of logic is quite original. Based on this "Gaskalla theory" if a Mr X would just say, that Mr Y is crazy, and nobody would rush just to contradict this opinion, it would be "scientifically justified" to send Mr. Y to an asylum?
4/ Mr.Bronson denies that anything else can stop canker, than
eradication. He refers to Brazil where they returned
to the practice of eradication. This is also just
distorting the facts.
In Brazil they spray with quatamarium ammonium
and copper chloride. But when all else fails eradication
is also employed in a small part of the Country.
The important difference between the Brazilian
and Floridian programs is that in Brazil the citrus
industry is paying for the procedure and no public
money is being used. In addition, eradication
is not carried out on all trees in a 1900 foot
radius around one infected tree, as in Florida,
as recommended by Dr. Tom Gottwald.
Merely a part of a block, 30 meters in diameter,
is eradicated in orchards. Ammonia is used to
disinfect orchard gates, cars, boxes, etc. Interestingly
enough, orchard owners can purchase insurance
policies against citrus canker.
In Spain the treatment against canker is the chemical
"ortofenil fenato sodico". To control black spots,
copper salts mixed with oil is applied by spraying.
Spraying is also used with products made with
"maneb and zineb".
The Japanese also use copper spraying. There are no eradication programs in Japan. However, the citrus canker outbreak areas are overlapping major growing areas of "Urshue orange" and in such orange producing prefectures "suppression programs" have been carried out, with copper spray commonly being used. Chemical treatments are also used as prevention in Chile, New Zealand and Mexico (where canker was never identified.) In China, they prune and destroy infected plant parts. They also use spraying with various chemicals, among them copper oxycloride and Bordeaux mixture.
5/ To further deny the usefulness of such chemical treatments
and to defend the need for eradication, Bronson
& Gaskalla use scare tactics: that copper
spray is endangering the drinking water.
It is untrue that copper spraying has any adverse health effect. It has been used in Europe in vineyards for about a century, spraying at least once a year every single plant from top to bottom.
The idea of poisoning the drinking water originates from Dr.Gabriel.
He wrote me a story about a citrus growing farmer who used it so that that "his entire tree was green, and the poor farmer did not know that he is not killing canker but killing himself poisoning his drinking water". (Just for the record: copper spray, Bordeaux solution, paints the plant blue and not green.) Millions of vineyard owners use such controls against perenospora and phylloxera and there were never adverse health effects reported.
6/ To defend the eradication program Bronson and Gaskalla
proudly refer to an area where eradication was
successful, and canker quarantine cold be suspended.
Unfortunately, no detailed statistical and geographical
data is available to scientifically examine this
claim.
I personally do not accept such a report, made by people who are lying in every other pro eradication argument. It seems that the only task of the Department is to please the citrus industry and to achieve the elimination of most, or all citrus trees in private gardens.
This way extends the industry's market by selling their products to the robbed home owners. And why? You must know it better than I.
Sincerely Peter Harsany, D.Sc. , posted 3/28/02
Letter
to Agricultural Commissioner Bronson
You refer to the so called Dr.Gottwald report, what was not controlled or repeated and can not be accepted to justify it. You really believe what you write that "the data from this research has been peer- reviewed and confirmed by scientists around the world. There is nothing questionable about the data." ?
The report itself claims that their recommendations are only 95% effective. However, 5% can continue to spread the disease. It can not be denied that in several citrus growing countries the disease is successfully controlled with chemical treatments. Rep. Lerner made only one mistake: the cost of the program is not $ 300 million, but with the outstanding debt to compensate home owners it is more than $ 400 million. Your argument that this money is not paid entirely by Florida, but is shared with the US Department of Agriculture does not change the fact that public funds are used to finance an unjust and ineffective program,
The two Houses of the Legislature have been misled into voting for the proposed law by being presented with the following misleading information:
1/ That the entire citrus industry is endangered by the citrus canker when over 90% of the industry, processing fruit or juice is not affected, only with skin blemishes on the citrus fruit.
2/ That the economic impact to the entire industry is 8.5 billion dollars, which would be 8 times the value of the total crop which is 1.1 billion dollars per annum. Real economic impact is expressed inclusive the cost of labour.
3/ That the solution is eradicating infected and non infected trees within a radius of 1900 feet of an infected tree. This originates from Dr. Gottwald of the USDA who called for these measures in order for the program be theoretically 95% effective. His research is without proper control data and still not published.
4/ That infected trees die. There is no evidence to substantiate this claim. On the contrary, Professor Whitehead claims that citrus canker is a self eliminating disease.
5/ That there are no chemical treatments to control canker. In several citrus growing countries chemical spray has been successfully applied for just this purpose.
WHAT ARE THE MOTIVES OF THE CITRUS INDUSTRY? According to public opinion it is to kill all home-grown citrus trees and to extend their market to all of South Florida.
WHAT IS THE RESULT OF THE ERADICATION PROGRAM? The squandering of several million dollars of public funds and offending civil rights without successfully stopping the epidemic.
This activity should be examined from three points of view: