[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Stop the White List ] [ About USDA Docket No. 03-069-1 ] [ Docket No. 03-069-1 ] [ Docket Comments ] [ Phytosanitary ]
J. L. HUDSON,
SEEDSMAN,
BOX 337,
LA
HONDA,
CALIFORNIA 94020-0337
USA
Thanks to all of you who sent comments to the USDA objecting to the Draft Action Plan for the
Noxious Weeds Program, and helped get the word out. I think we made a real impact this time, thanks
to you. We will make this sort of regulatory and legislative alert a permanent part of our service.
Due to time constraints, we intend to stay focused on regulations and laws that affect the free
exchange of seeds and plants. We will be closely watching the feds, but please help keep us informed
of state or international developments. Thanks again!
USDA plans to prevent all importation of seeds without
expensive certificates. (Note: this is now in effect, and has
already doubled the cost of importing many seeds.)
The USDA had planned to implement a new requirement on ALL IMPORTS, even of small packets for home
gardeners. All imports are supposed to require an expensive phytosanitary certificate costing up to
$60 per shipment. This was to take effect July 22nd, 2002. They claim the plan is now in effect, but
they have not been enforcing it and have done some back-pedaling in public statements. Thanks to
your letters, the plan has been delayed. We think they have realized from the great public outcry
that this was a very bad idea, and simply don't intend to enforce it for small parcels, and hope the
controversy quietly goes away.
In the future, if enforcement is actually begun, all of you who have enjoyed ordering rare seeds
from overseas or Canada from fine firms like Richter's, Silverhill, or Chilterns will find your
orders much more expensive. Some small firms in out-of-the way regions may find it difficult or
impossible to obtain these certificates. Even the USDA, ARS (Agricultural Research Service) has
objected to this unnecessary requirement!
Please contact the USDA and object to this, as we must keep up the pressure to ensure that they do
not begin enforcement. We should demand that the regulation actually be repealed, not just ignored,
or it will resurface in coming years. We absolutely must insist that a small-parcel exemption be
written into quarantine law—all parcels under 10 kg or $2000 value should be enterable without
permit or phytosanitary certificate, based on free, timely inspection at port-of-entry. We pay taxes
for a competent inspection service, and should receive what we have paid for.
The following is a post from Conrad Richter on this issue:
Well, as you know, on July 22 the small packet exemption will end and most seed imports no
matter how small the package will be stopped unless accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate. This
is very much about weeds and invasives because the main thing that the USDA is looking for is proof
that imported seeds are free of weeds. (This is atypical of what phytos normally address—to
certify that seeds are free of seed borne diseases and soil.)
The Canadian government has been trying to pitch to the USDA a new seed program modeled after the
Canadian greenhouse inspection program (of which Richters is a participant) whereby authorized
exporters will be allowed to ship seeds into the U.S. without the cumbersome phytos provided they
are able to comply with basic requirements for traceability and cleanliness. The U.S. government so
far has been non-committal and seems to be unconcerned about the havoc the July 22 deadline will
create. As it stands now most small packet shipments will likely be stopped after July 22.
According to one of the key negotiators on the Canadian side, a push from U.S. citizens and
businesses right now would be most opportune. If gardeners, herb enthusiasts, plant collectors, and
even researchers could weigh in with letters and phone calls to the USDA urging it to reconsider its
hard line stance on small seed packets (typically defined as packets under 5 pounds), the USDA may
yet come to its senses and open up to workable ideas for orderly seed imports. I suggest directing
letters, emails and calls to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS) in Maryland (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/).
To be sure the potential impact of the new proposals on invasives is much broader than the seed
packet issue to which I am referring here. But the July 22 deadline on small seed packet imports is
an immediate starting point for stakeholders, i.e., U.S. consumers and businesses, to let their
government know that they do not want their right to access to imported plants and seeds taken away.
Conrad Richter
http://www.richters.com
USDA Plans Severe Gardening Restrictions
Direct quotes from USDA Action Plan
Send objections to the USDA
Write your representative (Sample letter)
What President Bush says
What Bill Clinton says
What Al Gore says
What Ralph Nader says
The Draft Action Plan for the Noxious Weeds Program, which includes the
"clean list" or "white list" proposal. They are now going beyond the clean
list and are stating that they intend to require permits and inspections for ALL seeds
and plants moving interstate this will effectively shut down many popular seed
exchanges like the North American Rock Garden Society exchange and the Seed Saver's Exchange.
These exchanges have been hailed as important means of preserving biodiversity. How many home seed
savers will be willing to get appropriate licenses and inspections when they cost a minimum of $100
(for a nursery stock or seed license here in California). Penalties of up to $250,000 are
proposed with a minimum fine of $1000 even for home gardeners. Please
link to this page.
Contact Alan.V.Tasker@usda.gov
and state you are opposed to the "clean list" and any permit or inspection requirements for interstate movement of seeds and
plants. State that the Draft Action Plan for the Noxious Weeds Program is
unacceptable must be halted, additional time for public comment allowed, and no new restrictions on the free flow of any seeds and plants that are not
listed noxious weeds be put in place.
Last year, the USDA requested comments on its clean list proposal—they received an overwhelming
response—8 to 1 against, yet they are ignoring the clear will of
the American people. The government tried to impose a clean list policy three times during the
1970s, and had to back down each time due to negative response from biologists. Apparently,
"no" is not an acceptable response.
The initial public comment period ended March 29th, but it is important to keep up
pressure even after this date, particularly by writing your representatives. Apparently there will
be another public comment period at some point in the future—we will keep you posted.
The USDA is clearly out of touch with the American people. They just got through the huge furor when
they tried to impose "Organic Rules" which allowed irradiation and toxic sewage sludge
use. They collaborated on the infamous "Terminator Seeds" technology and patent, which
created self-sterilizing varieties to prevent seed-saving by farmers. They have also instituted new
phytosanitary certificate requirements which they admit are designed to prevent you from ordering
from overseas. Please object to the new phytosanitary rules in your letter, too.
Write to your representatives and demand that the out-of-control USDA be reined in.
These proposals fundamentally change the regulations on the importation and distribution of
plants. Currently, you may import, possess and distribute all plants except a few known harmful
species that are banned a "blacklist" approach in which everything is permitted except
what is prohibited. The new Clean List (or white list) policy is the opposite everything is
prohibited except what is on a government-approved "clean list" of species that the USDA
permits. This will effectively ban 99% of the species on the planet. The clean list or white
list has been called an internet hoax, and the agencies involved have actually sent out letters
denying they have such plans go to their website and read for yourself what they say:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/weeds/
See Weed Action Plan—4th blue box down on the right.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/weeds/weedsjan2002-pub.pdf (Note that this is a pdf file and takes
a long time to load—you will see a blank page for a while after clicking here)
THE FOLLOWING ARE DIRECT QUOTES FROM THE PROPOSAL
Draft Action Plan for the Noxious Weeds Program
Page 5:
Interstate movement:
"2) Issue regulations that require that any plant, plant product, biological control
organism, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance imported, entered, to be exported, or moved in interstate commerce be accompanied by a permit and a certification of
inspection and be subject to remedial measures necessary to prevent the spread of plant
pests or noxious weeds..."
NOTE: "Any plant or plant product" will include dried medicinal herbs, as well as
clean seeds.
Page 9:
"RECOMMENDED REGULATORY CHANGES"
"Emergency Action (recommended regulatory change)
The PPA authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to hold, seize, quarantine, treat, apply
other remedial measures to, destroy, or otherwise dispose of any plant, plant pest,
noxious weed, biological control organism, plant product, article, or means of conveyance
moving into or through the United States, or interstate, or moved
into or through the United States, or interstate, that the
Secretary has reason to believe is a plant pest or noxious weed, is infested with a plant pest or
noxious weed, or is in violation of the PPA. This authority includes action on the progeny of
any plant, biological control organism, plant product, plant pests, or noxious weed. Further, the Secretary may use extraordinary emergency action for weeds
threatening plants or plant products, if those weeds are new to or not known to be widely prevalent
in or distributed within and throughout the United States."
Page 14:
"Civil Penalties (recommended program change)
The PPA authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to hold, seize, quarantine, treat, apply other
remedial measures to, destroy, or otherwise dispose of any plant, plant pest, noxious weed,
biological control organism, plant product, article, or means of conveyance moving into or through
the United States, or interstate, or moved into or through the United States, or interstate, that
the Secretary has reason to believe is a plant pest or noxious weed, is infested with a plant pest
or noxious weed, or is in violation of the PPA. This authority includes action on the progeny of any
plant, biological control organism, plant product, plant pests, or noxious weed. If a plant, plant
pest, noxious weed, biological control organism, plant product, article, or means of conveyance is
in violation of the PPA, the Secretary may issue civil penalties ranging from $1,000 for an
initial violation by an individual moving regulated articles not for monetary gain, to $250,000 per violation. The Safeguarding Report recognizes that the PPA
civil penalty fee structure provides an effective deterrent against violations of the regulations. APHIS
plans to use our new authority under the PPA to issue civil penalties for noncompliance with the
regulations."
NOTE: "An individual moving articles not for monetary gain" means home gardeners.
Page 19:
"Risk Assessment for Imported Nursery Stock (Propagative
Material)
Current regulations do not mandate a screening process for the invasive potential of plants
imported for propagation. Under 7 CFR 319.37, nursery stock is admissible unless it is on a
regulated list. Plants on the regulated lists are prohibited either because they are Federal noxious
weeds or because they are associated with certain plant diseases or other plant pests. The Safeguarding Review recommends adopting a modified "clean list
approach" for propagative material, specifying what is permissible, rather than listing
regulated plants. Similarly, the draft Invasive Species Management Plan recommends
development of risk analysis and screening system for evaluating first time intentional
introductions of non-native species before entry is allowed.
The PPA states that the Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the importation, entry,
exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of any plant, plant product, biological control
organism, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance to prevent the introduction into the United
States or dissemination within the United States of a plant pest or noxious weed. The PPA further
provides the authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to initiate a screening process to evaluate
proposed new introductions of non-native plants. Risk assessment for propagative material has
two weed-related components: evaluation of the commodity as a potential weed and evaluation of the
commodity's potential to provide a pathway for weeds."
NOTE: "...specifying what is permissible, rather than listing regulated plants" means
that everything that is not on the government-approved list will be prohibited. Currently, they list
only what is prohibited—"regulated plants."
Page 20:
"Proposed Strategies to Achieve the Goal:
1. Risk assessment: Use risk assessment processes that follow international standards to
support identification of weed species to be regulated, provide classification of undesirable
plant species, identify potential pathways, and determine appropriate regulatory action.
3. Weediness Screening: Explore revision of the nursery stock regulations (7 CFR 319.37) to require
risk assessment before a commodity is approved for entry."
NOTE: "Weediness Screening" and "risk assessment before a commodity is approved
for entry" means that all species will be denied entry (import) until the government has
determined that they are approved.
How to Contact Your Members of Congress in
Washington, DC:
Contact information and a search by state for Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives is as follows:
Find your Senators
at: http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index_by_state.cfm
Find your Congressperson at: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Sample letter to an elected representative:
Please print this out and send it to your representative. E-mailing is second-best, as a
physical letter carries much more weight. Send a copy to the USDA, marked "My
comments on the Draft Action Plan for the Noxious Weeds Program."
Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman
Jamie L. Whitten Federal Bldg. Rm. 200-A
12th & Jefferson Dr., SW
Washington DC 20250
Phone 202-720-3631, Fax: 720-2166 Email: agsec@usda.gov
and E-mail them a comment objecting to the clean list.
Also be sure to send 4 copiesof your
comments to:
Docket No. 01-034-1
Regulatory Analysis and Development
PPD, APHIS Suite 3C03
4700 River Road, Unit 118
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238
This is necessary so that your e-mails will not simply be deleted. Also send copies to your
representatives.
Honorable _________________________
As a concerned voter, I am writing object to the USDA Draft Action Plan for the
Noxious Weeds Program, which will implement a "clean list" and other unwarranted
restrictions controlling the import and movement of plants and animals in the U.S., allegedly to
stop the spread of "invasive species."
I feel that this "clean list" would be a reckless and irresponsible
policy, for the following reasons:
Such a policy requires adequate, scientifically verified methods of predicting
which species would be "invasive," yet all scientific attempts at predicting
"invasiveness" have failed.
We already have adequate weed laws. We already know which species are
pests; implementing a sweeping, poorly-conceived ban on what will amount to 99% of the world's
species will cause more problems than it could possibly solve.
Scientific researchers need ready access to the earth's biological resources
for new food crops, new medicinal plants, new industrial uses. Limiting this access will place
U.S. scientists at a disadvantage in the competitive world markets. Limiting our farmers'
access to new crops will increase our dependence on foreign supplies.
It will result in greater usage of herbicides on our public lands.
It will do nothing to address the fundamental causes of "invasive"
species—disrupted ecosystems.
Small entrepreneurial businesses are responsible for the majority of all jobs
created in the past 20 years, and they will bear the brunt of the economic harm this measure will
create. Small nurseries have been responsible for the majority of new plant introductions from
overseas which have revitalized the entire gardening industry in recent decades.
According to the USDA Economic Research Service, horticulture and floriculture
are the fastest growing sector of U.S. agriculture with 12.1 billion in revenues in
1998, and this has steadily risen since. In these difficult economic times, it is grossly
irresponsible of the USDA to obstruct such an economic powerhouse with completely untested,
unproven and unnecessary regulatory restrictions.
These restrictions may be illegal under free trade treaties, and are sure to
invite retaliatory measures by our trading partners. This comes at a time when entrepreneurial
free trade should be encouraged.
The clean list is only the latest in a pattern of USDA obstruction of legitimate
business and biodiversity conservation efforts, as witness the recent imposition of outdated
regulations that haven't been enforced in decades due to their inapplicability. The
phytosanitary-certificate requirement for flower seeds which has been unnecessary and unenforced
for over 50 years, and irrational prohibitions of modern sterile-culture orchid seedlings
(essential for orchid conservation), have both been suddenly enforced by an out-of-control USDA,
sending shockwaves throughout the nursery industry and gardening community. Antiquated, outmoded
regulations from the 19th century should not be enforced in the 21st.
The clean list proposal is a reckless and irresponsible expansion of an
antiquated, cumbersome and inefficient bureaucracy at a time when government should be moving
towards a streamlined and efficient future.
When the USDA requested comments on the clean list proposal, American scientists,
businessmen and gardeners were 8 to 1 against the clean list, yet the USDA ignored the
clear mandate from the American people, and included this and even more restrictive proposals in
the Draft Action Plan. The USDA is totally out of touch with the American people remember the
recent "Organic Rules" furor?
One of the founding fathers of our nation, Thomas Jefferson, said: "The
greatest service a man may do for his country is the introduction of a useful plant." I hope
you will stand with Jefferson on this issue, and rein in the out-of-control USDA and NISC.
I am totally opposed to any "clean list" policy as well as the new phytosanitary
and orchid-seedling restrictions, and am opposed to any further restrictions and roadblocks
to interstate commerce. The USDA must get back to its mission of serving agriculture, not
obstructing it.
In closing, I want to point out that gardeners are the single largest common-interest group in the
U.S., and that you can be sure we will Remember In November. I will be waiting for your response,
indicating what you are doing to rein in the USDA and NISC, and where you stand on the "clean
list" issue.
Sincerely,
President Bush speaks on trade:
President Bush speaking in New Orleans Jan. 15 2002 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020115.html
"I'm worried about jobs. And I believe if you trade more, there
are more jobs available for hardworking Americans. (Applause.) There are some who play politics with
the trade issue. They want to shut down trade. I like to remind people, those who shut down
trade aren't confident. They're not confident in the American worker; they're not confident in the
American entrepreneur; they're not confident in American products.
I'm just the opposite... therefore, we ought to have free and fair trade around the world.
(Applause.) I'm not the only one that feels that way. Some of the longshoremen that I met coming in
said, we need trade so I can keep working...
This isn't a Republican issue, this isn't a Democrat issue. Trade is a jobs issue. (Applause.)"
"Small business is the backbone of the free-enterprise system, and
small business owners embody the American Dream." President G. W. Bush quoted on a poster in
the Post Office.
Former President Bill Clinton speaks on free trade:
"We don't need to build walls, we need to build bridges. We don't need protection,
we need opportunity. But in a world of stiff competition we also need more than free trade. We
need fair trade with fair rules."
Source: Between Hope and History, by Bill Clinton, p. 34 - 35 Jan 1, 1996.
"But, overall, trade has brought vast benefits to most Americans. Jobs in exporting
companies on average pay considerably higher wages than jobs in companies that sell only within the
US."
Source: Between Hope and History, by Bill Clinton, p. 33 - 34 Jan 1, 1996
"The global economy is giving more of our own people and millions around the world the
chance to work and live and raise their families with dignity... We must embrace boldly and
resolutely our duty to lead... and to put a human face on the global economy so that expanded
trade benefits all peoples in all nations, lifting lives and hopes all across the world."
Source: President Clinton's farewell address Jan 18, 2001.
http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Bill_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm
Al Gore speaks on trade:
"All developed countries—whether in Asia, Europe, or the Americas—must play a role, and
keep tearing down trade barriers. In the end, in this global economy, protectionism will only
protect us from prosperity itself."
Source: Speech at APEC Business Summit Nov 16, 1998
"We must welcome and promote truly free trade. But I say to you: it must be fair trade.
We must set standards to end child labor, to prevent the exploitation of workers and the poisoning
of the environment. Free trade can and must be—and if I'm President, will be—a way to lift
everyone up, not bring anyone down to the lowest common denominator."
Source: Speech to the Democratic National Convention Aug 18, 2000
http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Al_Gore_Free_Trade.htm
Ralph Nader speaks on trade:
"The global corporatists preach a model of economic growth that rests on the flows of trade and
finance between nations dominated by the giant multinationals—drugs, tobacco, oil, banking, and
other services. The global corporate model is premised on the concentration of power over
markets, governments, mass media, patent monopolies over critical drugs
andseeds, the workplace and corporate
culture. All these and other power concentrates, homogenize the globe and undermine democratic
processes and their benefits.
Far better for countries to focus on building domestic markets through land reform, microcredit for small
businesses, use of local materials for housing and renewable energy solar-style. For developing
countries, it is far better for bottom-up capital formation to encourage activities that are more
job intensive—generating purchasing power—than adopting highly capitalized and
chemical plantation type agribusiness with destructive technologies."
Source: "In the Public Interest" newspaper column Dec 7, 1999.
http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Ralph_Nader_Free_Trade.htm
Direct quotes from USDA Action Plan
Send objections to the USDA
Write your representative (Sample letter)
What President Bush says
What Bill Clinton says
What Al Gore says
What Ralph Nader says
[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Stop the White List ] [ About USDA Docket No. 03-069-1 ] [ Docket No. 03-069-1 ] [ Docket Comments ] [ Phytosanitary ]