 |
The Citrus Canker Controversy
|
Help support |
Check the new WhoseFlorida for updates In the News: (news clips have not been kept updated - check archives)
Citrus quarantine? Maybe Homeowners fined thousands for violating citrus canker quarantine- LOXAHATCHEE — Two Florida homeowners who violated citrus canker quarantine rules have been fined thousands of dollars by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 10/8/02
Wal-Mart director is top giver to Bush effort--
TALLAHASSEE -- Billionaire John Walton, son of the late Wal-Mart Stores Inc. founder, Sam Walton, has emerged as Florida's biggest individual political donor of this campaign season, last month giving $325,000 to Gov. Jeb Bush's re-election effort.-- News Clips on Canker (More..)
|
In Name Of Science? 2/04/03
LIZ COMPTON'S INSULT - Liz Compton, "Public information Director" of Florida Department of Agriculture wrote to Pablo Espinosa:
TREE OF SOCIETY OR THE TREES OF SOCIETY? 1/11/03 See also: additional timely essays by Dr. Peter Harsany on the Citrus Canker Domination of the Fresh Fruit Growers 10/30/02 The lack of planning in the Department of Agriculture is responsible for the current spread of the citrus canker epidemic... more.. More of the same from Dep't of Agriculture on citrus canker 8/6/02 Save the citrus industry and the trees in home gardens! Harsany responds to Senator Posey's query 6/14/02 Orange trees are not the only citrus canker hosts 5/8/02 There are other treatments for citrus canker 3/28/02 Letter to Agricultural Commissioner Bronson 2/26/02 Guidelines to Investigate 2/4/02 Memo to the Governor and Commisioner Bronson re: 11/14/01 meeting on citrus canker 11/17 Second correspondence with Charles Bronson / Harsany on the citrus canker 10/8 Presentation to the meeting with the agricultural department's representatives in Palm Beach 9/30 Correspondence with Bronson-Gascalla on the Citrus Canker 9/15/01 FALSE FIGURES ABOUT THE CITRUS BUSINESS 9/13/01 Harsany: The truth about the citrus canker eradication program the program 8/26/01 Citrus canker eradication program 8/3/01 The truth about the citrus canker eradication program (Harsany) |
Agricultural
commissioner Bronson points to picture of citrus canker
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.
The fact is, that Dr.Gottwald's experiment did not recommend eradication and he never suggested it.
A single experiment, if not repeated and confirmed by other scientists is not scientific proof. The goal of the experiment was not considering eradication but to search for the distance of the spread of canker infection. The scientists participating in this research, Dr. Gottwald, Dr. Sun and Dr. Graham, examined only how far canker bacteria travels before it falls to the ground.
It has little importance that critics found several errors in this experiment and that "peers" approved only Dr.Gottwald's paper but not the experiment itself. That Dr.Gottwald did not considered his experiment proof for the 1900 ft. scenario, (what has been invented by a group in the Department with claims to Dr.Gottwald's findings) is documented by quoting him:
"Although this bacterial disease is mostly a leaf and fruit spotting malady....it is because of its socio-economic and political impact that the disease is so devastating" (from LTE in Phyopathology)
"Can we live with citrus canker? - Several countries in Southeast Asia, South America and elsewhere have lived with canker for decades. In many cases their industry actually co-evolved with canker from the start" "Even if eradication is achieved, there is a high probability for introduction of Xac (canker) in the future."- "Introduction of the disease is a fairly regular occurrence."
It has been researched by Professor Chester H. Himel and other scientists that the canker bacterium has a beneficial effect on the tree.
Quoting Dr.Himel: "The citrus canker bacterium is inherently innocuous. It does cause blemishes on fruit but it also stimulates immune responses in citrus trees making them more resistant to many stress factors. Thus, on balance, the citrus canker bacterium, when controlled, is a good bacterium, Not the devastating threat pictured by the citrus power structure. The bacterium has no effect on the yield or quality of citrus grown for juice which constitutes more than 90% of Florida's citrus production."
Quoting Professor Heinz K.Wutscher:
"Citrus canker is a disease no more serious than a dozen other citrus diseases and is found in most humid-climate citrus growing areas, but never in dry areas. Brazil, after 60 years with canker, now produces 10 times as much citrus as when the disease was introduced." Professor Jack O.Whitehead described in several papers the findings of his life-long research investigating citrus canker and concluded that "canker cannot kill trees".
"Canker could not be a serious problem for Florida growers". Describing the course of canker lead to the conclusion that canker is a self eliminating disease.
There is no scientific evidence to justify eradication.
And no justification exists that individual home owners should suffer to benefit any interest groups, especially when the reasoning for it is false.
No government, federal or state, has the right to squander taxpayers money patronizing a group of producers, just for saving them to spend on production costs for prevention against a plant disease.
If a sector of producers is not viable to be competitive on the export market, the Government may subsidize them to a certain extent for the sake of the economy. But to do so at the expense of individual home owners, trampling on their constitutional rights and causing them immense emotional damage is unforgettable.
It is especially unforgettable as the entire program is useless. Peter Harsany, D.Sc. (Doctor in agricultural economics)
2/4/03
LIZ COMPTON'S INSULT
Liz Compton, "Public information Director" of Florida Department of Agriculture wrote to Pablo Espinosa:
"I find Dr.Harsany's information to be misinformation and factually incorrect". She repeated a few of the well known cliches to justify her accusation.
Here is my answer:
Dear Ms. Compton, Referring to my evaluation of the Department's citrus canker propaganda, what Mr.Espinosa sent to you, you took the liberty of stating "I find Dr.Harsany's information to be misinformation and factually incorrect."
I understand that you are in a difficult position having the job to defend and spread the Department's effort of using untrue arguments to justify a program, which squanders millions of dollars of public money for the questionable interest of a small section of citrus growers. If you are obliged to spread misinformation, please do not believe that scientists not in service of the Department are doing the same. In answer to your remarks, that
1/ canker results in in diminishing crop yield, which also effects juice producers. There is no scientific or statistical data to confirm this. On the contrary, it has been researched by Professor H. Chester Himel and others that the canker bacterium has a beneficial effect on the tree. For your information I quote the findings:
 | Dr.Himel: "I have found that the citrus canker bacterium is inherently innocuous. It does cause blemishes on fruit but it also stimulates immune responses in citrus trees making them more resistant to many stress factors. Thus, on balance, the citrus canker bacterium, when controlled, is a good bacterium, Not the devastating threat pictured by the citrus power structure. The bacterium has no effect on the yield or quality of citrus grown for juice which constitutes more than 90% of Florida's citrus production." |
| Marion Henderson's explanation: "The bacterial colony's "rough" polysaccharide covering while protecting the bacteria from drying out and dying, prevents the bacteria from moving systemically within the tree or into the juice. Xanthomonas Axonopodis pv. citri, the citrus canker bacterium, has an avirulent gene that activates the tree's Hypersensitive Response -- host cell die-back in the immediate vicinity of the bacteria . It is followed within 24 hours by Systemic Acquired Resistance (SAR) -- the production of additional enzymes and proteins that interfere with the bacteria's ability to replicate by fission Thus, SAR increases the tree's ability to prevent the bacteria from moving to and getting established on other parts of the tree. SAR also enables the tree to better withstand environmental stresses -- the hot sun, high winds, long dry or wet periods." |
| Professor Wutscher: "Citrus canker is a disease no more serious than a dozen other citrus diseases and is found in most humid-climate citrus growing areas, but never in dry areas. Brazil, after 50 years with canker, now produces 10 times as much citrus as when the disease was introduced. Eradication efforts there and in other countries have been unsuccessful." |
| I also quote Dr.Gottwald about the scenario of "living with canker": "Can we live with citrus canker? - Several countries in Southeast Asia, South America and elsewhere have lived with canker for decades. In many cases their industry actually co-evolved with canker from the start" Even if eradication is achieved, there is a high probability for introduction of Xac (canker) in the future."- "Introduction of the disease is a fairly regular occurrence." |
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."
Sincerely, Peter Harsany, D.Sc. (Doctor in agricultural economics) , 1/23/03
TREE OF SOCIETY OR THE TREES OF SOCIETY?
Letter to the Governor:
Dear Governor,
In your inaugural speech you declared that "Compassion and kindness were the roots that anchor the tree of society, that compassion, not compulsion is the key to unlock the future." A beautiful sentence. However, when you talk about the "tree of society" - and "compassion" do you consider also "the trees of society?" The hundreds of thousands of citrus trees eradicated, hundreds of thousands of home owners legally robbed for the interest of a small group of (the fresh fruit growing) citrus grove owners?
All that is based on false arguments, like "Canker threatens Florida's entire agriculture, the second largest industry after tourism and is critical to our economy".
That sounds like quite an impressive argument, were it true. It attempts to justify mass killings of trees in private gardens at taxpayers' expense. The fact is, however, that citrus production is not all of the agriculture. Florida's entire agriculture industry is a 6 billion dollar industry and the citrus industry is a 1.1 billion dollar fraction of it. The endangered sub sector, the fresh fruit growers are only a very small (however very powerful) part of the citrus industry. They are about 1/10 of all the citrus growers. That means that the only canker-sensitive fresh fruit growing sub sector, valued at 110 million dollars is a fraction of 1/60 of Florida's entire agriculture! It is also untrue that "Cutting down healthy citrus trees in a radius of 1900 feet around an infected tree is based on science". It is based on an experiment conducted by Dr.Gottwald, who declared that still further experiments are needed and will be done by the Florida research team in Brazil. (As he said at theCitrus Canker Symposium in 2000). It is also untrue that "Eradication is the only method of controlling canker".
Eradication is ineffective. In spite of cutting down more than 600,000 healthy trees, canker spreads to counties far away of the eradicated areas. Infected trees were found In Brevard, Collier, Hendry, Highlands, Lee, Martin, Orange and Okeechobee counties. Independent scientists, professors Jack O.Whitehead, Charles H.Hamel,and Heinz K.Wutscher with life long scientific research established the fact that eradication is ineffective to control canker. It is also untrue that "Chemical treatments are useless". They are the best methods of prevention. Chemical treatments are successfully used in South America and in many other countries. It is also claimed that "Canker is destroying Florida's entire citrus industry". Te fact is that groves growing citrus to process it, 90% of the industry, are not affected by only blemishes on the skin of the fruit.
To contradict this fact it is said that "Canker is weakening, finally destroying trees. Unripe fruits are falling of the tree." There is no scientific justification for this statement. On the contrary, researchers show that the canker bacterium has certain beneficial effects on the tree, as researched by independent scientists, Professor Chester H.Hamel and others.
It was also declared that "The eradication program is helping everybody, including the home owners". Untrue, like the other arguments.Home owners can use the fruit even with blemishes on the skin.
The argument that "A major threat of citrus canker may result in a state-wide quarantine that would prohibit the shipment of fresh fruit from this state's most important economic contributors" is also untrue.
Argentina, a canker endemic country, has been exporting citrus into the USA and Europe for years and is scheduled to ship directly to Florida in 2004. - 99% of all Florida's fruit export go to non citrus producing regions or to countries that already have canker. (Researched by Jack Haire).
The Legislature unfortunately gave credit to these false arguments introducing the citrus canker eradication laws, with devastating economic impacts: a/ Eradicating 600,000 mostly healthy citrus trees and legally robbing home owners, offending their constitutional rights.
b/ Squandering over 400 million dollars of taxpayers' money for the unfair program, cutting down backyard trees, paying 78 million dollars compensation to commercial growers and incurring enormous Court costs for defending it.
c/ Causing the sensitive fresh fruit growing sector of the citrus industry to become unprotected with the false belief that cutting down trees in home gardens protects them from canker. Lawmakers in the Legislature accepted the false arguments and voted for it.. However, a law based on false information and considered unconstitutional (also for other reasons) must be revoked, as it was created by misleading the legislators.
Please apply your principle "Compassion not compulsion is the key to unlock our future" also to the bankrupt and unjust citrus canker eradication program.
Sincerely, Peter Harsany, D.Sc. (Doctor in agricultural economics)
1/11/03
NO PLANNING JUST OBSESSION
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."
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 rule
It 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.
The author incorrectly stated that the citrus canker eradication
effort does not apply the 1,900-foot cutting zone to commercial
citrus groves. The 1,900-foot cutting policy applies to commercial
as well as residential properties. In fact, the citrus industry has
sacrificed more than 1.6 million diseased and exposed trees during
the eradication program.
Currently, a Circuit Court injunction prevents the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services from applying the 1,900-foot cutting zone without
the permission of property owners. Despite this legal impediment,
owners of groves where canker has been found have consistently
cooperated and allowed the removal of not only the infected trees,
but those located within the 1,900-foot radius. The commercial
citrus industry understands the economic devastation that will occur
should this serious disease be allowed to spread.
Homeowners have also been extremely cooperative. The science the
department has relied upon during the eradication effort shows that
citrus trees within 1,900 feet of an infected tree have been exposed
and are likely to become infected over time. This science has been
peer-reviewed and accepted by plant pathologists around the world.
Armed with this information, many homeowners are voluntarily
allowing the department to remove exposed citrus trees.
I sincerely appreciate the cooperation from residents and commercial
growers. It is imperative that we succeed in the battle to eradicate
citrus canker. Hundreds of thousands of residential trees and a $9
billion citrus industry are at stake.
Charles H. Bronson
Commissioner of Agriculture Tallahassee
Letter
to the editor; Sun-Sentinel;8/11/02
(Response to a letter from Agriculture Department Secretary Bronson posted in the 7/29/02 issue of the Orlando Sentinel)
(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."
| It is quite a hypocritical idea to save thousands of residential trees by killing hundreds of thousands of them... |
| Florida's $9 billion citrus industry? Mr Bronson repeated that so many times that maybe he believes it. He should know best that Florida has only a $1.1 billion commercial citrus industry. |
| This untrue statement appears the first time in Mr.Bronson's armoury of false arguments. To be on the safe side debating this allegation, Professor Chester H. Himel called Professor Whiteside, who announced that "HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN TALKING ABOUT ASIAN STRAIN OF CANKER." |
| There is no independent scientist to say that canker may effect citrus trees in such a way that the majority of the industry, (about 90%), could not produce juice profitably regardless if it is infected by canker or not. |
| This aspect had been researched by Jack Haire: "His quarantine threat is going to be hard to sell when Argentina a canker endemic country, has been exporting into the USA and Europe for years and is scheduled to ship directly to Florida in 2004. - 99% of all Florida's fruit export go to not-citrus producing regions or to countries that already have canker." |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
DR. HARSANY'S SUGGESTION ABOUT THE CITRUS CANKER PROBLEM - In RESPONSE TO SENATOR BILL POSEY'S QUESTION:
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.
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
Carrying out research, I found that all plants belonging to the
Rutacaea family, the family of citrus, are able
to host canker bacteria. The Rutaceae are herbs,
shrubs and trees comprising of about 150 genera
and 1500 species.
One of the most commonly grown such plant is the Prickly Ash (Xanthoxylum Americanum). It has two varieties: Northern Prickly Ash and Southern Prickly Ash (Flagara Clava-Herculis). Both are used for medical purposes, acting as strong stimulants.
| 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.
There are other treatment protocols for citrus canker
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,
1/" added value" a $ 4.18 billion dollar impact.
2/ attributed to purchases by the industry: $2.13 billion dollar impact
3/ customer spending by employees: $ 2.93 billion dollar impact
3300 DeFalaise #603 Montreal, Que, H3R 2E5.
Guidelines to investigate
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.
(Top)
Memo
to the Governor and Commisioner Bronson re:
11/14/01 meeting on citrus canker
Since I could not attend the meeting November 14, please allow me to express to present my input in the following Memorandum. I ask you, to stop the senseless and expensive eradication program. Many people are convinced that it is forced only to help the fund raisers to get higher contributions from the citrus industry.
This activity should be examined from three points of view:
2/ Economic aspects
There are promises of $100.00 per tree (in the far future) - a very arbitrary and one-sided valuation. A still disputed promise. This figure is less than the value of one year crop of a full grown tree. Sentimental values cannot be compensated for. A price tag of $600.00 to $ 800.00 would be far more just. It should not be forgotten that the former commissioner, Mr. Crawford, announced on the 12th of January 2001 that he delivered a check of eight million Dollars (of taxpayers money) "making good on a pledge". Does anyone know how was this money spent? Such legalized robbery is unprecedented. There are people who wish to compare it to the destruction of animals in the case of mad cow disease. However, that is quite misleading. Such animals will be easily replaced. There is no need to wait 20 years, to have them again at their same age and value. And it should not be forgotten, that most of these animals were kept for sale on the market for meat production. The only difference was that these animals were actually purchased by the government and not by slaughterhouses. There is no excuse for the violation of private property with the eradication program.
No sophisticated mathematics are needed to judge the program's effect on home owners, whose property has been "eradicated". The question is compensation. Actually very little, practically nothing has been compensated. The already mentioned $ 100.00 Wal Mart voucher offered per gardens and not per trees, to be used in one appointed store has little value and creates suspicion of patronage. Anything more which may or may not be offered is still being debated. There is no bargaining between the robbed private garden owners and the authorities. The members of the State Government are bargaining by themselves regarding how little should be paid and how far in the future.
No wonder that the public is comparing this with nazi propaganda methods. The entire action invading, many times breaking into private gardens, using police force is such kind of activity. All this is a costly, misleading maneuver, forcing on the general public an ineffective program.
Such is the situation in Chile and Mexico (where canker was never identified on citrus plantations) and also in New Zealand. There are more drastic defensive measures applied in Brazil. Here, they effectively spray with quatamarium ammonium and copper chloride. But when unavoidable eradication is also employed. 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, like in Florida, as recommended by Dr. Tom Gottwald.
Merely a part of a block is eradicated in orchards, 30 meters in diameter. Ammonia is used to disinfect orchard gates, cars, boxes, etc. Interestingly enough, orchard owners can take insurance policies against citrus canker.
Ottawa, Ontario K1N 9E6
3300 DeFalaise #603.....