Harsany on Citrus Canker

Essay's by Dr. Peter Harsany:

Domination of the Fresh Fruit Growers 10/30/02

The truth about the Citrus Canker Eradication Program

Check the new WhoseFlorida for updates

DOMINATION OF THE FRESH FRUIT GROWERS

Citrus canker is called a "devastating" epidemic. Although studies conducted by such prominent scientists as Professor Jack O. Whiteside found it to be a self eliminating disease, commercial fresh fruit growers cannot wait for the infected trees to recover. If sound preventive measures are not applied, the epidemic may have grave consequences. The trees in the groves cannot be fully compensated by insurance payments and money from the government. In some cases however, it can provide the benefit of replacing old and exhausted trees with young and more resistant stock and at the same time collecting compensation from the Government.

There are many other bacterium, viruses, and insects threatening trees in citrus groves. Some can be quite "devastating" , but the growers know how to prevent this and protect the trees using chemical treatments. Citrus canker, however, is regarded by the growers in a different way. It is costly to apply preventive treatments to fight a canker epidemic.

Their own representatives planted the concept not to invest in expensive new equipment (such as high pressure spraying} and in more chemicals which may cut extensively into their profits. They prefer that the cost of fighting canker should be borne by taxpayers and the owners of citrus trees in private gardens.

These representatives of the fresh fruit growers have become a very influential political and financial power.

Lead for decades by Ben Hill Griffin junior, - about whom the biographer E.Garrett Youngblood wrote that "on citrus his word was law, - literally." and that "amending a Ben Hill Griffin citrus bill would be like amending the book of nemesis".

Anything what this sector wants becomes government policy, and is voted into law.

They want to cut down as many trees as possible in home gardens. Kenneth Keck, director of legal and regulatory affairs for "Florida Citrus Mutual" expressed the need to eliminate all the residential citrus trees.

This "others should pay, not me" attitude is, however, a very short-sighted policy. It diverts the grower's awareness from the real solution, that is, to protect their groves with the application of proper treatments before the epidemic spreads to their doorsteps. Eradication by applying the 1900 feet policy is only 95% effective, as stated by Dr.Gottwald,s experimental study. It is in realty 100% useless. It leaves the uncut trees exposed to infection: by man, birds, bees and from other than citrus canker hosting plants. That has been proven by the fact that far away from the epidemic stricken areas, in Brevard, Collier, Hendry, Highlands, Lee, Martin, Orange and Sarasota counties canker infected trees were found.

More than 400 million dollars of taxpayer's money has been already spent for this program, offending constitutional rights of individuals, legally robbing hundreds of thousands of homeowners.

As the Agricultural Department is misleading the public and Legislators with untrue arguments, (not only by talking about a "9 billion dollar citrus industry in Florida" when the real figure is only 1.1 billion dollar) but also suggesting that "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, if true. It attempts to justify mass killings of trees at taxpayers expense in private gardens. The fact is, however, that citrus production is not all of the agriculture.

Florida,s entire agriculture 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 fresh fruit growing sub sector, valued at 110 million dollars is a fraction of 1/60 of Florida's entire agriculture. The majority, 90% of the citrus industry, are growing to process the fruit (for juice, etc.,) and are not affected in their production by only the blemishes on the skin of the fruit. Arguments, that their trees may suffer from canker by the early falling of the fruit, or by weakening the trees, were never scientifically proven.

As far, as I do not wish to belittle the fresh fruit growers problems in respect to canker (if they do not protect themselves) the eventual decrease in their production has nominal, if any effect on Florida's economy. The cost of the eradication program is about four times as much (over 400 million dollars) as the total value of the fresh fruit growing sector (110 million dollars).

The fresh fruit growers also force the execution of the program to expand their market. About 590,000 trees were eradicated in home gardens only in Dade-Miami and Broward counties: now treeless home owners have to buy fruit. A lot of new customers for the industry.

The fact is that this small sector of the citrus industry is dominating the lobbying, representation and policy making of the entire citrus industry: representation to the government, lobbyists, growers association, fundraisers. - it is hard to find names of citrus processors. Typical example is the "State of Florida Department of Citrus Florida Citrus Commission":

John R.Alexander,(chairman) grower,
James D.Brewer grower ,
Tristan G.Chapman, processor,
Harry H.Falk, grower,
Christopher \W.Gargano,processor,
Raymond A.Jackson, grower,
William E.Kemper, grower,
Lindsay Raley Jr., grower,
Daniel R.Richey, grower,
Nancy J.Schafer, grower,
Ray Smith, grower,
Andrew R.Taylor processor.

10 of the 12 Commissioners, including their chairman are fresh fruit growers. Only two among them represent the processors. There are 77 licensed fundraisers in the citrus industry. with only 2 processors on this list.

Processors have not much voice in representations, in political influence. This large majority in the industry (90%) however, can prosper regardless of a canker epidemic.

As long as the leaders of the fresh fruit growing section follow their obsession of forcing eradication instead to organize sound preventive measures, the future of the fresh fruit growing section remains uncertain. Many of today's fresh fruit growing groves may have to switch to processing their crop.

A citrus industry, with even a larger number of well managed, well protected processing groves, - canker or no canker - will to a great extent contribute to the healthy economy of Florida.

Peter Harsany, D.Sc.

(doctor in agricultural economics)

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CITRUS CANKER ERADICATION PROGRAM

essay on citrus canker eradication program By Peter Harsany,D.Sc.

Thousands are complaining about being robbed, their property invaded, as their pride of their gardens, their trees, sometimes grown with caring love for 20 years - their orange, grapefruit or lime trees are killed. It is not generally known that they are not alone. All the taxpayers are blinded with lies as millions of dollars are squandered to finance this "program". This activity should be examined from three points of view: 1/ Political, - violating rights of individuals, 2/ Economic aspects 3/ Plant pathology.

I. VIOLATING RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS

It is indisputable, that invading, destroying private property, without consent of home owners and practically without compensation is nothing else than legalized robbery. Such activity does not belong to a democratic society. Promises of some kind of compensation be paid in the future is not changing the characterization of the action, being a legalized robbery, offending the basic constitutional right of individuals. A few people received a $ 100.- voucher per plundered gardens, (not for each tree) to be used by one designated dealer for restricted purchases only. That had very little practical use, but a very bad smell. There are promises of $ 100.00 per tree (in the far future) - a very arbitrary and one-sided valuation. A still disputed promise.

Such an amount is less than the value of one year crop of a full grown tree. Sentimental values cannot be compensated, a price tag of $ 600.00 to $ 800.00 is 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 with the destroying 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. Hundreds of protest letters give evidence of unbelievable offenses against rights of individual property owners. Broward Circuit Judge J.Leonard Fleet declared on November 14 2000: "The First Amendment rights of property owners have been trampled by the citrus canker eradication program."

II.ECONOMIC ASPECTS.

The economic aspects of the citrus tree eradication program are to be considered in their affects on home owners involved, the citrus industry itself and effects on the taxpayers at large. No sophisticated mathematics are needed to judge the programs effect on the home owners, whose property has been "eradicated". The question is compensation. Actually very little, practically nothing has been compensated. The already mentioned $ 100.00 WalMart 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 to offer is still 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. More complex is the damage to the general public, to the taxpayers. The enormous cost of this useless program, - reasoning based on plain lie, is the most scandalous misuse of public funds in the history of the State. The Agricultural Department argues that eradication is the only effective way to save the 8.5 billion dollar business of the citrus industry in Florida: the largest source of tax income for the state, the well being of the entire population. It should be established, that it is untrue, that eradication is the only way to control citrus canker.

Even the most biased pathologists, employed by the state, agree that eradication cannot stop the spread of the bacteria. Such lies, however, are not the only ones. The biggest lie is the reasoning: "to save a 8.5 billion dollar industry". That is the basis for the entire program, misleading legislators and the general taxpayers alike. Citrus canker is only a blemish on the skin on the surface of the fruit, absolutely not affecting the taste,or effecting the healthy inside of the fruit. The fact is that for this reason only about 9% of the orange crop is endangered if it is infected at all. 91% of the crop is used for juice production, the principal business of the industry. More grapefruits are sold as fresh fruit (about 35% the of the crop. 65% of it is also used for juice.)

It is evident that to "save a 8.5 billion dollar industry" is an unprecedented lie. ENDANGERED (BUT NOT NECESSARY DAMAGED) IS NOT A 8.5 BILLION DOLLAR CROP, ONLY ABOUT 1.5 MILLION!

No special protection is needed for the 91% of orange trees, grown for juice production and for grapefruits grown for the same purpose.Talking about saving a 8.5 billion dollar business is a lie, a false propaganda. No wonder that the public is comparing this with the Goebbels-like propaganda of Hitler. The entire action invading, many times breaking into private gardens, using police force is called nazi-like activity. All this is a costly, misleading maneuver, forcing on the general public an ineffective program. Data about the cost of this public exploitation, squandering of public funds is not available. The Department did not feel the necessity to provide an account of its spending. About 870,000 citrus trees were killed as of August 2001, but if the program is not stopped and the Department continues with the mass killings, this figure with its cost will be considerably higher, day by day, as several thousands more trees continue to fall.. No figures being available, we can only estimate the extent of this squandering. For cutting the already killed 870,000 trees the Department had to pay $ 98.50 for each to the tree cutting contractors. Now they wish to get more. The cost in the future will be even higher

	Enormous amounts are being paid to the so called "inspectors".Their number swelled to about 11,000 for an extended time
	Extra "public defenders" were hired to "protect' the owners. (Their number is not known, but it has been reported that on several occasions more than 6 people invaded a garden consisting of only 3-4 trees)
	The cost of disinfection material, uniforms for the participants is another expense item

The Department hired 1200 telephone operators(as per April 2000) to answer complaints

It was reported by the Department that an additional 1400 telephone operators were needed to handle inquiries regarding this program

	The cost of many extra telephone lines is also to be considered
	We do not know the Department's cost for their in-department operation, including bonuses for "good work". (It is also unknown if Mr. Crawford received a nice bonus in cash on top of obtaining a privileged, highly paid job.)

The amount of the Department's legal expenses and court costs is not known. It can be as high as is being paid for cutting down the trees

The cost of involving local police in municipalities is also to be calculated

The eventual compensation planned to be paid to the home owners is here not stipulated. Even the unsatisfactory $ 100.00 to be paid for each killed trees (as debated now) will be an expense of many millions of dollars for the 870,000 plus eradicated trees

ADDING UP THE ESTIMATED AMOUNTS OF THE ABOVE EXPENSES CAN BE AS MUCH AS 403 MILLION DOLLARS

The only benefit to the citrus industry, resulting from this operation is that the home owners, who lost their trees will have to buy the their oranges and grapefruits (grown by the industry) in stores. According to newspaper reports the Federal Government granted 215 million dollars (till the end of the year 2000) for the eradication program, to the state. Taxpayers money. It is interesting that members of the citrus industry already participated from of this grant to compensate for their damages. On top of 12.5 million dollar received from the insurance companies. This senseless program and spending of public money has not stopped. False propaganda is still spreading, trying to create a kind of false patriotic feeling in some naive home owners that they are the great patriots, sacrificing their trees for the good of Florida.

III. PLANT PATHOLOGY

It is not easy to argue with people who are obsessed (for dubious reasons) that the only way to fight canker is eradication of infected trees or those within 1900 feet of them. Top scientists, among them Professor Jack O. Whiteside, have other opinions: that citrus canker is a selveliminating cosmetic problem and such drastic measures are not justified. When lobbyists, like the commercial citrus growers, dictate to the authorities, the consequences are, like in the present program, mass killings of trees on private properties. This is considered legalized robbery and many compare it with Nazi methods. This comparison is also justified with a propaganda apparatus preaching the false claim of supposed beneficial effects of the program. It has been established that eradication cannot stop the spread of canker. A single bird or an angry home owner can easily infect large numbers of commercial groves. There are recommendations to use wind breakers, similar to ones in citrus growing countries not employing eradication. The propaganda masters, with the co-operation of government employed scientists hush up the fact that the mighty juice production industry is not endangered by canker, only a minority of growers, selling fresh fruits. This group of growers can and should protect their trees, with preventive treatments such as chemical spraying. There is an interesting proposition (by a Fort Lauderdale home owner, Mr. Sherman Carr) to protect the industry by creating a 1900 feet citrus free zone between the commercial growers and the home owners location. His argument is, if true, what the eradication officials say, that in a distance of 1900 feet distance from an infected tree, all healthy trees must be cut down,to protect the ones outside of this circle, then the theory can be applied to the commercial growing area, creating an 1900 feet protective zone instead of cutting down healthy trees hundreds of miles South of them, in private gardens. Professor Jack.O. Whiteside studied the canker problem in Argentina, Japan, Rhodesia and Brazil. His lifelong research concluded that no eradication was used in these leading citrus growing countries . The situations are similar in China, Chile, Spain, Egypt, Italy and the Bahamas, and - Texas.

(Since Professor Whiteside,s visit, in part of Brazil there are now eradications, to a limited extent. In a totally different way as in Florida, and paid by the industry.

In most of these countries chemical spraying is employed as prevention. To involve the industry with the cost of the preventive measures is not preferred by the growers. One writer representing the growers calculated the unwelcome expenses to the growers as follows: to create windbreakers, spraying trees, inspecting the fresh fruits (?) may cost 56.7 million dollars per year for the industry. The study did not consider that windbreakers do not have to be built every year, and did not disclose that such expenses include also the unaffected juice producers (who may not need it) or only the sensitive fresh fruit producing section of the industry. The writer did not recognize that spraying should be a normal maintenance procedure about which other fruit growers or vineyards never complain. It is strange how some otherwise respectable scientists have joined the bandwagon of the anti-homeowner front, providing false justifications in favor of eradication. They join the Goebbels- like propaganda machine using environmental scare tactics. One wrote, that in a foreign country he observed how farmers' trees was green from to top to the bottom from copper spray. He wrote: the poor farmer did not know that as far as he did not kill the canker of his tree, he poisoned his own drinking water.

It should be noted that copper spray ("Bordeaux mixture") - a mixture of copper sulfate and lime, had been used for nearly a century in European vineyards, without any health hazards. The copper is only sprayed on the leaves, coloring them blue, not green, and not on the soil.. People using such scare tactics forget that chemicals (pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers) are spread or sprinkled on the ground (on lawns, vegetables, etc.) without "poisoning the drinking water". Prevention with spraying is important in commercial groves and home gardens alike. It is imperative to use them also where the otherwise innocent blemish on the surface of the fruit cannot be tolerated.

There are many copper contained compounds for spraying on the market, fungicides sold for use on fruit trees and on vegetables. Such are "Kocide" (copper hydroxide), made by Griffin Co. in Georgia, " Pluto 50 WP" (coppercloid) made by EDC in the USA, " Caplan 50 WP" (50% Caplan) made by Tomen Aggro, USA, " "Champion", (copper hydroxide) made by Tomen, USA and a product, called "Coppersite" sold by Home Depot in Florida. None of these products claim to be able to kill canker bacteria, but may be effective for prevention, if the treatments are repeated. Two new fungicides are introduced in the US with the claim to be able to kill the bacteria, to heal infected trees. One is "OxiDate" containing hydrogen bioxide and peroxiacetic acid, made by "Biosafe System" in Connecticut. The other is "Magna-Bon Eradicator" (made of copper sulfate and a kind of acid) manufactured by New Magna Corporation in Okeechobee, Florida. . These products successfully prevent infection, and protect the trees but their healing capacity must be proven in the field. Another way of protection is to grow immune trees like Valencia oranges and mandarins. There will be immune stocks available, grown by a scientist researcher, Mr. Dean W. Gabriel. Nothing justifies spending public money for an ineffective, offending solution, especially when is spent to protect the majority of the commercial growers (the juice producers) who do not benefit from it. Since it is not proven that some treatments which can prevent the disease are also able to heal it, may give ammunition to the propagandists, obsessed with the mania of eradication. The reasonings are that "the canker bacteria is so deep under the surface of the leaf that nothing else can help only the chain saw." Let us consider a scenario where no chemicals are used to heal already infected citrus trees. Such a scenario may have different reactions, need different decisions to be made by commercial growers and in home gardens.

Until there is no citrus canker epidemic in the juice producing groves, they just have to follow routine preventive activities by spraying their healthy trees. If the disease appears in the juice producing groves, the farmer may just neglect the appearing blemishes, and process the fruit as before. spraying to prevent further spread of the disease. Until effective infections appear the fresh fruit growers can protect themselves with repeated sprayings. If the disease appears, decisions are to be made depending on the extent of the infections. The infected trees may have to be cut down, to be replaced with healthy trees, or immune species, but not neglecting the preventive chemical treatments. The Department of Agriculture had the opportunity during the past 85 years to teach citrus growers preventive methods: Bordeaux mixtures have been known for 100 years, and can be mixed of inexpensive ingredients (copper sulfate and lime) on the farm. To neglect the possible prevention and then conducting mass killing trees in private properties ( missing the proper planning) is unforgivable irresponsibility.

To make decisions in home gardens in scenarios as discussed above, the choice is similar than for commercial fresh fruit growers. It is highly recommended that home owners spray their trees. No one should wait for the Government do that. They have no business in private gardens and to charge for this service. If the home owners' trees are already infected with blemishes on the surface of the fruits, this must not influence the enjoyment of the fruit, either eaten or pressed for juice. Naturally, the home owner (if he is young enough) can decide to replace the diseased tree or trees, and protect them with regular spraying.

Whatever the decisions, Professor Jack.O. Whitesides conclusions should not be forgotten: CITRUS CANKER IS A SELF ELIMINATING COSMETIC PROBLEM, WHICH IS NOT WORTH ELIMINATING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

(From Peter Harsany, D.Sc.( doctor in agricultural economics) 3300

DeFalaise, #603 Montreal, Que, H3R 2E5

(Top) (Home)