Judge sides with Florida on citrus quarantine
Judge sides with Florida on citrus quarantine
On Wednesday, Dec. 19, in an emergency injunction attempt in a Tallahassee, FL, courtroom, a judge ruled against California in its attempt to have a quarantine lifted on citrus fruit shipped to Florida due to Septoria citri. The quarantine went into effect Dec. 7. California Citrus Mutual, Sunkist Growers Inc. and others filed the lawsuit.
The ruling comes just over a month following APHIS' final rule that permits interstate movement of citrus fruit from quarantined areas of Florida, which California fought to prevent. Florida is now two-for-two in its legal battles with California over domestic citrus movement.
The California citrus industry did not expect the Septoria citri quarantine, which requires every container of California citrus to be inspected for fungus spots, treated with a fungicide and stamped with a certificate authorized by the state.
The state typically ships approximately 7,000 truckloads, or about $75 million worth of citrus, to Florida each year and considers Florida to be one of its key markets for oranges, lemons and grapefruit.
Septoria citri is a fungus that the U.S. Department of Agriculture classifies as a disease of minor significance to citrus crops. But according to the Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Septoria citri is not a minor threat.
"I am extremely pleased with the court's decision to uphold Florida's ability to take steps to protect our citrus industry from yet another devastating disease," Florida Commissioner of Agriculture Charles Bronson said in a statement. "Our growers are already under siege by citrus greening and canker, and the measures we implemented were designed to ensure Septoria citri is not introduced into this state."
Mr. Bronson said that Septoria citri is a fungus that can mar the fruit, making fresh citrus unmarketable.
"I am constitutionally required to protect Florida agriculture, and I believe the court saw that we are trying to work out the issues," Mr. Bronson said in the statement. "California growers will have the opportunity to present their concerns in the formal rulemaking process."
The judge ruled that Florida's actions were clearly in keeping with the department's regulatory duties. In the court hearing, California Citrus Mutual officials said that growers there have been unable to ship citrus to Florida due to the regulations they sought to overturn. However, 78 of the 80 citrus packinghouses have signed compliance agreements, and California citrus has been shipped into Florida compliant with the Septoria citri regulations since Dec. 8.
Mr. Bronson also stated that he was disappointed by the position taken by Sunkist, one of the larger shippers in California, which he said was more worried about market share than protecting the overall health of the domestic citrus industry.
Until the past few years, Florida and California have worked their own separate markets with little conflict. With a few variety exceptions, the majority of Florida's citrus crop goes to processing, and California's is used predominantly for the fresh market.
According to Florida Citrus Mutual, a member-group in Lakeland, FL, the Nov. 17 APHIS ruling will allow 20-25 percent more Florida citrus fruit to be shipped domestically; however, it still cannot ship to California, Arizona, Texas or other states that produce citrus fruits. The ruling stated that shipments of asymptomatic fresh citrus to non-citrus-producing states in the domestic market are permitted, and that "the packinghouse measures of disinfection and APHIS inspection ensure that even if a given shipment were illegally moved to a commercial citrus-producing state, the shipment would have a low likelihood of containing fruit with the potential to cause an outbreak of citrus canker disease."
California fought the ruling, and growers there feel that the Septoria citri quarantine is retaliatory for the ban on Florida citrus to those states. In the lawsuit, California claims the ban on California shipments violates interstate commerce and discriminates against California products.
The lawsuit reads, "This action is not to protect the health and safety of the Florida citrus industry, but is an improper burden upon interstate commerce that protects the Florida fresh industry at the expense of the California fresh industry."
Despite whatever tit-for-tat may be going on between the two states, one thing is certain: Florida industry feels justified in doing whatever it must to prevent another disease or fungus from affecting its citrus groves.
Hundreds of thousands of acres of citrus trees have had to be destroyed in the past decade because of both citrus canker and citrus greening.
Mike Sparks, executive vice president and chief executive officer of Florida Citrus Mutual, attended a summit Dec. 17-18 in Bethesda, MD, hosted by the USDA that focused on citrus greening and the Asian citrus psyllid, the insect that carries the disease from tree to tree. The intent of the summit was to enhance prevention, preparedness, response and recovery efforts.
"Those specific efforts will be focused on at a later date," said Mr. Sparks. "The focus of this initial summit was to look at the greening issue from a high-level perspective and have all of the players from the domestic citrus industry agree greening is a national problem that we need to attack collectively. That was accomplished. By January, the USDA is scheduled to complete a summation of the meeting with all of the issues addressed. At that point, each segment of the industry can decide on roles and responsibilities."
Mr. Sparks said that the summit was a great success. "All of the states involved are competitors on some level, but it sure was refreshing to see us collectively agree that greening is a threat to all of us and consequently we must cooperate to beat it."
Florida Citrus Mutual also said that while it does not know of any predictions of the spread of greening in the future, many within the industry feel it is more widespread than originally thought, and that if growers don't start taking grove-level measures to mitigate the disease, it will spread further.
The ruling comes just over a month following APHIS' final rule that permits interstate movement of citrus fruit from quarantined areas of Florida, which California fought to prevent. Florida is now two-for-two in its legal battles with California over domestic citrus movement.
The California citrus industry did not expect the Septoria citri quarantine, which requires every container of California citrus to be inspected for fungus spots, treated with a fungicide and stamped with a certificate authorized by the state.
The state typically ships approximately 7,000 truckloads, or about $75 million worth of citrus, to Florida each year and considers Florida to be one of its key markets for oranges, lemons and grapefruit.
Septoria citri is a fungus that the U.S. Department of Agriculture classifies as a disease of minor significance to citrus crops. But according to the Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Septoria citri is not a minor threat.
"I am extremely pleased with the court's decision to uphold Florida's ability to take steps to protect our citrus industry from yet another devastating disease," Florida Commissioner of Agriculture Charles Bronson said in a statement. "Our growers are already under siege by citrus greening and canker, and the measures we implemented were designed to ensure Septoria citri is not introduced into this state."
Mr. Bronson said that Septoria citri is a fungus that can mar the fruit, making fresh citrus unmarketable.
"I am constitutionally required to protect Florida agriculture, and I believe the court saw that we are trying to work out the issues," Mr. Bronson said in the statement. "California growers will have the opportunity to present their concerns in the formal rulemaking process."
The judge ruled that Florida's actions were clearly in keeping with the department's regulatory duties. In the court hearing, California Citrus Mutual officials said that growers there have been unable to ship citrus to Florida due to the regulations they sought to overturn. However, 78 of the 80 citrus packinghouses have signed compliance agreements, and California citrus has been shipped into Florida compliant with the Septoria citri regulations since Dec. 8.
Mr. Bronson also stated that he was disappointed by the position taken by Sunkist, one of the larger shippers in California, which he said was more worried about market share than protecting the overall health of the domestic citrus industry.
Until the past few years, Florida and California have worked their own separate markets with little conflict. With a few variety exceptions, the majority of Florida's citrus crop goes to processing, and California's is used predominantly for the fresh market.
According to Florida Citrus Mutual, a member-group in Lakeland, FL, the Nov. 17 APHIS ruling will allow 20-25 percent more Florida citrus fruit to be shipped domestically; however, it still cannot ship to California, Arizona, Texas or other states that produce citrus fruits. The ruling stated that shipments of asymptomatic fresh citrus to non-citrus-producing states in the domestic market are permitted, and that "the packinghouse measures of disinfection and APHIS inspection ensure that even if a given shipment were illegally moved to a commercial citrus-producing state, the shipment would have a low likelihood of containing fruit with the potential to cause an outbreak of citrus canker disease."
California fought the ruling, and growers there feel that the Septoria citri quarantine is retaliatory for the ban on Florida citrus to those states. In the lawsuit, California claims the ban on California shipments violates interstate commerce and discriminates against California products.
The lawsuit reads, "This action is not to protect the health and safety of the Florida citrus industry, but is an improper burden upon interstate commerce that protects the Florida fresh industry at the expense of the California fresh industry."
Despite whatever tit-for-tat may be going on between the two states, one thing is certain: Florida industry feels justified in doing whatever it must to prevent another disease or fungus from affecting its citrus groves.
Hundreds of thousands of acres of citrus trees have had to be destroyed in the past decade because of both citrus canker and citrus greening.
Mike Sparks, executive vice president and chief executive officer of Florida Citrus Mutual, attended a summit Dec. 17-18 in Bethesda, MD, hosted by the USDA that focused on citrus greening and the Asian citrus psyllid, the insect that carries the disease from tree to tree. The intent of the summit was to enhance prevention, preparedness, response and recovery efforts.
"Those specific efforts will be focused on at a later date," said Mr. Sparks. "The focus of this initial summit was to look at the greening issue from a high-level perspective and have all of the players from the domestic citrus industry agree greening is a national problem that we need to attack collectively. That was accomplished. By January, the USDA is scheduled to complete a summation of the meeting with all of the issues addressed. At that point, each segment of the industry can decide on roles and responsibilities."
Mr. Sparks said that the summit was a great success. "All of the states involved are competitors on some level, but it sure was refreshing to see us collectively agree that greening is a threat to all of us and consequently we must cooperate to beat it."
Florida Citrus Mutual also said that while it does not know of any predictions of the spread of greening in the future, many within the industry feel it is more widespread than originally thought, and that if growers don't start taking grove-level measures to mitigate the disease, it will spread further.
