Federal Court Finds USDA Failed to Apply Sound Science, Proper Documentation on Import Decision; Halts Further Argentine Citrus Imports.

Business Editors & Legal Writers

FRESNO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 2, 2001

In what could be a far-reaching decision, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in Fresno found that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) acted arbitrarily and capriciously and exceeded its statutory authority when it decided in June 2000 to allow Argentine citrus into the United States (Harlan Land Company, et al. vs. USDA, Case No. CV-F-00-6106-REC/LJO), according to Pierre Tada, co-chair of the U.S. Citrus Science Council (USCSC).

USCSC, a group of more than 5,000 citrus growers in California and Arizona, filed the suit because of its concerns that the importation of citrus fruit grown in regions of Argentina, where serious plant pests and diseases are prevalent, poses a grave hazard to domestic citrus groves.

Following the original approval of the Argentine citrus imports in June 2000, Argentine lemons were imported in small quantities during the past two summers. The federal court suspended imports of Argentine fruit into the United States until the USDA completes the additional scientific and regulatory work outlined by the court and issues a replacement rule.

"This decision comes at a particularly fortuitous time, as the U.S. and all other members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) begin a new round of multilateral trade talks in Qatar in early November," said Tada. "This decision takes us to the second phase of implementation of the all-important Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement of the Uruguay Round. It is truly a landmark decision that will benefit all agricultural trade.

"This decision is extremely positive for international trade -- particularly for U.S. exports," continued Tada. "We believe this will lead to all members of the WTO providing a completely transparent rationale for all import and export decisions. This is precisely what the U.S. fought for in the Uruguay Round."

The agency's decision to allow the imports was based on its belief that a multi-step mitigation system known as a "systems approach" would reduce to a "negligible" level the risk that any of the plant diseases and insect pests present in Argentina would be introduced into the United States. The court, however, criticized USDA for failing to define the standard of "negligible risk" it applied in evaluating the Argentine import petition and for relying on a faulty risk assessment that lacked a complete and transparent documentation of the data and other information used to select probability values. Reliance on this faulty risk assessment, the court found, also led USDA unjustifiably to dispense with analyses of the rule's economic impact on small businesses and its impact on the quality of the human environment.

The court also expressed concern with USDA's reliance on the Argentine plant protection agency, SENASA, given that SENASA earlier in 2001 had covered up a foot-and-mouth outbreak in Argentina. The decision states: "Frankly, the court is concerned about whether SENASA can be entrusted to enforce the mitigation measures used by the systems approach."

"We are grateful that the federal court has agreed with what USCSC has stated all along: decisions on trade in fresh produce that can carry pests and diseases from one country to another must be based on impeccable science," said Joel Nelsen, co-chair of USCSC. "The scientific record in the Argentine case was simply inadequate and unacceptable, particularly for such a precedent-setting decision. We repeatedly informed USDA of our concerns, and we are pleased the court understood and agreed with us.

"We look forward to working with USDA to show the rest of the world how scientific work should be done to the benefit of all members of the world trading community," concluded Nelsen.

For a copy of the decision, contact Diane Rumbaugh, 805/493-2877, [e-mail].