Click here to get the PDF
which includes footnotes

Sept. 25, 2006

Docket No. APHIS-2006-0040
Regulatory Analysis and Development
PPD / APHIS
Station 3A-0.38
4700 River Road – Unit 118
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238

Re: Docket No. APHIS-2006-0040 – “Importation of Fruit from Thailand”

To whom it may concern:

Food & Water Watch, a national non-profit consumer organization, is pleased to submit this comment on the above-referenced docket, concerning the importation of litchi, longan, mango, mangosteen, pineapple and rambutan from Thailand to the United States.

The Proposed Rule should not be implemented, due to numerous shortcomings and misrepresentations concerning its environmental and economic effects.


(1) APHIS’ Economic Analysis is Flawed

APHIS bases its conclusion that increased imports of pineapples would not have “large repercussions” for domestic producers on incorrect data and unsupported assertions.

APHIS states pineapple production “has remained fairly consistent over the years despite increased imports from abroad.”

The USDA’s own data refute this. From 2001 to 2005, annual pineapple production in Hawaii (where essentially all US production occurs) fell from 323,000 to 212,000 tons, value dropped from $96 million to $79 million, and acreage fell from 20,100 to 14,000. During this same period, imports rose from 357,000 to 645,000 tons.

APHIS claims in the Proposed Rule, “it appears that imports do not compete with domestic production.” Not only does APHIS fail to support this claim, it runs contrary to the agency’s own data. According to the USDA, imports rose by 80,000 tons from 2002 to 2003. A year later, in 2004, Hawaiian production fell by the exact same amount.

Moreover, Del Monte specifically cited foreign competition in its recent decision to stop growing pineapples in Hawaii after 90 years of operation there. “As a result of increased planting of pineapple at lower costs in other parts of the world, the company believes that it will not be economically feasible to continue to produce pineapples in Hawaii,” Del Monte announced in February 2006. Likewise, Dole said at the time, “It’s well known that there are less-expensive growing regions to source from.”


(2) APHIS’ Scientific Analysis is Inadequate

APHIS makes reckless assumptions concerning the ability of invasive fruit flies and fungi to survive the movement of fruit from Thailand to the US.

APHIS’ confidence that exposure to 400 Gray of radiation will neutralize invasive pests is undermined by its own caveat that fruit destined for export to the US must be “grown in a production area that is registered with and monitored” by Thailand. Doing so, APHIS says, will reduce the number of pests in fruit and thus “maximize the effectiveness of the irradiation treatment.” APHIS provides no supporting data – in the Proposed Rule or its Risk Management or Environmental Assessment documents – on the relationship between the number of pests residing in a particular fruit, and the ability of a specific irradiation level to eradicate them.

Regarding litchi, the Proposed Rule states APHIS officials “believe” that “most” fruit infected with the fungus Peronophythora litchii will be culled before it is shipped to the US by “trained harvesters, packinghouse personnel, and plant quarantine inspectors.”

This statement is flawed on many levels. First, APHIS should have more than a belief that this will happen. Second, all fruit – not most fruit – infected with this fungus should be culled before it is shipped to the US. And third, the Proposed Rule makes no certification that the training these workers receive is adequate to perform the task of culling infected fruit.


(3) Adequate Safeguards are Lacking

Given the potential risks to the domestic agriculture industry, it is unconscionable that APHIS has failed to conduct a comprehensive pest risk analysis. The Proposed Rule is rife with vague and unsupported statements and assertions. To name but a few:

• “[W]e are confident that inspection can detect” pupae and adults of three invasive pests in litchi for which APHIS acknowledges 400 Gray is inadequate to achieve eradication.

• As stated in (2) above, the Proposed Rule states APHIS officials “believe” that “most” fruit infected with the fungus Peronophythora litchii will be culled before it is shipped to the US.

• Mangoes exhibiting symptoms of the fungus Phomopsis mangiferae “are likely to be detected at harvest and during packing and inspection.” The Proposed Rule acknowledges that “latent infections” may survive and actually proliferate, but that the amount of infected mangoes “expected” to be shipped to the vulnerable states of California, Florida, Hawaii and Texas will be “small.”

Equivocating words such as “likely,” “expected,” “believe” and “most” have no place in a Proposed Rule with such great implications for the agricultural and environmental health of our country, and by their nature undermine the confidence that farmers and consumers have in the ability of APHIS to protect the nation’s shores.

The USDA itself says that, in the absence of adequate management, fruit flies could cause $1.8 billion in damage per year. All told, the 50,000 foreign plant and animal species that have become established in the US over the past 200 years have caused an estimated $138 billion in damage per year.

Taken together, these flaws render the Proposed Rule utterly inadequate. It should be withdrawn immediately until these and the many valid issues raised by other commenters are thoroughly addressed.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this matter, which is of great concern to American consumers.

Respectfully submitted,



Wenonah Hauter
Executive Director


cc: Sen. Daniel Akaka
Sen. Daniel Inouye
Dr. Ron DeHaven
Dr. Richard L. Dunkle