![](media/image1.png){width="1.3416666666666666in"
height="1.3777777777777778in"}

April 28, 2005

Regulatory Analysis and Development

PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71

4700 River Road

Unit 118

Riverdale, MD 20737-1238

Docket No. 03-048-1

To whom it concerns:

We are writing in vigorous opposition to that portion of Docket No.
03-048-1 that would permit the importation of grapefruit, oranges, and
tangerines into the United States from Mexico without treatment under
certain conditions.

In the proposal, APHIS notes that "The government of Mexico has
requested that we allow untreated grapefruit, sweet oranges, and
tangerines to be imported and processed \...in areas of the State of
Texas that are under quarantine for Mexican fruit fly and that are under
an APHIS­ approved preventative release program using sterile insect
technique for Mexican fruit fly."

It is deeply disappointing to those of us in the Texas citrus industry
that APHIS/USDA officials in Washington seemingly are more responsive to
the interests of the Mexican government than the interests of U.S.
citizens in Texas. While we have been aware for some time that APHIS was
considering such a proposal at the behest of Mexican growers and the
government of that country, we never were consulted in any formal sense,
questioned as to the phytosanitary and/or economic consequences of such
a change in regulations, nor queried on how such imports might impact
the fresh and processed citrus industries in Texas.

Ironically, there is only one remaining citrus juice extraction plant in
the three counties of South Texas that would be included in the proposed
regulations, and that facility has made it clear to APHIS that is does
not need or want to process Mexican citrus. The further irony is that
APHIS is proposing to allow untreated---and potentially
infested---citrus into the Rio Grande Valley at precisely the same time
that it is making costly efforts to upgrade the Mexfly suppression
program in the same three counties into which the untreated fruit would
be required to enter. Apparently APHIS believes the suppression program
in those counties would contribute to minimizing any additional risk the
untreated imports might pose, but the danger of further stressing an
already overburdened program seems to have been ignored. In addition,
that suppression program addresses only Mexican fruit fly, and has no
affect on Mediterranean fruit fly, Sapote fruit fly, or any other of
several potentially damaging fruit fly pests that are commonplace in
Mexico.

In reading the proposed rule it appears that Mexico is requesting
regulations similar to those operating in South Texas in terms of an
intensive trapping program, release of sterile flies and a one and half
mile buffer. There are major problems with the lack of clarity regarding
how this program would be implemented. First, terms like Preventive
Release Program (PRP) are used very loosely. The proposal says South
Texas has a PRP and we do not. A PRP is used in areas with a high risk
for an infestation but where an infestation does not exist. The rule
discusses low prevalence zone as if it has been officially defined and
agreed to by the U.S. and such an agreement is far from being reached.

Second, it is not clear if Mexico wants to bring fruit in 365 days a
year or only into a zone in South Texas after it has been triggered.

Of great concern to us is the fact that under the proposal, "\....the
growers who would conduct the trapping would be required to be monitored
under an APHIS-approved quality control program."

In other words, Mexican producers would be tasked with running and
maintaining the fly trapping and surveillance program---under the
oversight of the Mexican government, which would be under the oversight
of APHIS---that would determine whether untreated citrus could be
exported to Texas. This component of the proposal is nothing short of
preposterous. U.S. producers are not entrusted with conducting the
trapping program in this country, nor do we want to be. This clearly is
and should be a government function. However, given the Mexican
government's long established indifference to an effective fly control
program---even when the U.S. pays for it---there is no reason to believe
such a program would be efficacious even if conducted entirely by the
Mexican government. The fact is that there are so many fruit flies of
various species infesting wild and domestic citrus and other fruits in
Mexican production areas that nothing short of a massive suppression
program would have any practical hope of success, and there is no reason
whatsoever to think the Mexican industry or government has the will,
ability or resources to mount such a program.

It is our position that untreated citrus from Mexico simply cannot be
allowed into the U.S. unless and until Mexico has created and operated a
successful fly suppression program in carefully defined production areas
for a period of not less than three years after becoming fully
operational and effective. By carefully defined, we assume Mexico would
start with an area---if they could find one---with historically low fly
populations. Mexican officials like to cite the fly free program in the
state of Sonora as an example, but it should be noted that this area had
a long history of low level infestation leading up to the declaration of
the fly free zone. By successful, we mean that Mexico must create a
program, conducted entirely by the Mexican government with APHIS
oversight, that parallels the South Texas program and produces proven
results that reduce the risk from imports to the minimal levels the
current Texas program assures other citrus producing areas. This program
must address not only *Anastrepha ludens,* but all other fruit flies
from Mexico that might potentially infest U.S. production areas in Texas
and other states. After-the-fact "declarations" from Mexico's national
plant protection organization (NPPO) claiming that trapping requirements
have been met are, in our opinion, of little or no value. The proposal
says that "Upon trapping of a (fruit fly) in a production site or buffer
area, exports from that production site are prohibited until the
Administrator determines that phytosanitary measures taken have been
effective to allow the resumption of export from that production site."
What in the world does that mean? What specific criteria would the
Administrator use? We believe that no such wide discretion should be
part of the regulations until and unless the Administrator has been
permanently freed of economic and political influences from the
exporting country, the office of the Secretary of USDA, and trade
officials at the White House.

Complicating the proposal, and causing us further alarm, is the
clarification of the definition of "inspector," to include not only
APHIS personnel, but also employees of the Department of Homeland
Security's Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. As a practical
matter, we in industry have long observed that, contrary to the solemn
insistence of Homeland Security officials, CBP "inspectors" simply do
not take their duties inspecting fruits and vegetables as seriously as
we want. They are much more interested in catching terrorists than they
are in catching fruit flies. While one can understand this attitude, the
economic consequences of fruit fly infestation are potentially enormous.
APHIS inspectors understand this; CBP inspectors often do not. The
solution is not to turn produce inspection responsibilities over to CBP
personnel; it is to emphasize the gravity of food inspection within
Homeland Security. Until that has been done convincingly, CBP personnel
should not be conducting phytosanitary duties.

The proposal also addresses imports of citrus from the Dominican
Republic and Australia, and imports of many other fruits and vegetables
from various nations. In general, no weakening of

our phytosanitary standards for imports should be allowed until we have
a very high level of confidence that such regulatory changes represent
no increased risk of the introduction of foreign pests. Sadly, our
national record on keeping such pests out is not impressive, and it is
of enormous and genuine concern to those of us in industry that at the
same time our imports of fruits and vegetables from Latin America are
increasingly dramatically, our safeguards are being curtailed under
economic and political pressure from exporting countries. Interestingly,
while Mexico wants to be able to ship untreated citrus to the U.S., we
still must treat any citrus going to Mexico, despite our much more
sophisticated and effective pest control programs. APHIS seems unfazed
by this inconsistency.

Finally we strongly object to the claim by APHIS that "This change in
the regulations would positively affect U.S. citrus processing plants.
These businesses and their surrounding areas are expected to benefit. In
addition, there should be added work for the U.S. trucking industry as a
result of the loading of the fruit containers at the U.S./Mexico border
and transport and unloading the containers at the processing plants."

Let us repeat that there is only one citrus juice extraction plant in
the area. That plant has made it clear it is not interested in
processing imported Mexican citrus, treated or otherwise. There used to
be other plants in the area years ago, but the economics of the citrus
industry in Texas have caused them to be permanently shut down. Does
APHIS have economic data we in industry do not know about that would
indicate the construction of more plants is likely if we were to receive
untreated citrus imports? We would certainly like to know what underlies
the Agency's rosy economic predictions. As to additional opportunities
for truckers, the single processing plant we do have in the Rio Grande
Valley is approximately five miles northwest of the primary port of
entry at Pharr/Reynosa. Does APHIS believe those five miles represent a
looming windfall for U.S. truckers, even if the plant did want Mexican
citrus? Again, show us the data or cease making the claims. The proposal
also says that the change in regulations would have no negative economic
impact in the region. While the import of a small amount of citrus for
processing probably would have a modest impact, the risk of augmenting
the fruit fly population would certainly be costly to the U.S. industry.
In fact, during the week of April 24 of this year, Arizona and
California shut off access to their markets for virtually all Texas
oranges and grapefruit following the discovery of live *Anastrepha
ludens* larvae in two truckloads of fruit. These finds highlight the
need to review and expand the suppression activities in South Texas, and
the absolute need to prevent, so far as possible, the introduction of
additional flies from Mexico.

In sum, we believe the proposal, if enacted as written, would represent
a very real and immediate invasive pest risk to the commercial citrus
acreage of Texas and other states, including California and Florida, and
would produce no economic gain north of the border. For years we in the
Texas citrus industry have joined with APHIS in trying to convince the
Mexican industry/government to make a genuine effort to control fruit
flies in that country, but Mexico never has demonstrated the will or
commitment to engage in more than temporary token efforts. Even when we
pay for the construction of inspection stations along principal highways
to reduce the movement of infested produce coming north, they decline to
man those stations save on a very random and occasional basis. There are
those who suggest this is a paper proposal that would not result in any
untreated citrus being exported to Texas because fruit fly populations
are so high in Mexican production areas that shipment requirements never
could be met. We must insist that so long as Mexican producers, with or
without Mexican government oversight, put out the traps, count and
identify the flies, and certify the citrus meets phytosanitary
standards, the proposed system is profoundly and irreparably flawed
before it begins.

We also find several provisions in this proposal have not been defined
or have been ill defined at best. Until a low prevalence zone is defined
and accepted by the U.S. we do not know the fly situation in Mexico
where fruit would be coming from. Mexico apparently has one concept in
mind for a low prevalence zone, but there are major differences on this
issue between Mexico and the U.S. Unless some basic concepts and
definitions are agreed to, this proposal is simply premature and by any
reasonable standard is very poorly drafted.

Very importantly, this proposal focuses on Mexican fruit fly. All other
economically important *Anastrapha* species, and Medfly, must be
comprehensively addressed in any such proposal.

Mexico has the potential to produce a great deal of citrus. Before any
of that citrus can be exported untreated to the U.S., Mexico must
construct and maintain an efficient, effective fruit fly suppression
program that proves itself over time. If Mexico is unwilling or unable
to do that, it must accept that only treated exports can be sent to the
United States. And the U.S Department of Agriculture, for its part,
should renew its responsibility to protect the domestic industry.

Ray Prewett John McClung

Ray Prewett John M. McClung

President President and CEO

![](media/image3.png){width="1.3298611111111112in"
height="1.3763888888888889in"}Texas Citrus Mutual Texas Produce
Association