The following myths were part of an editorial appearing in the St. Petersburg Times.

Myth: It could be the plot of a science fiction movie, but the events are actually playing out in Florida. An unseen alien invader slips into the state and moves silently from host to host, sapping their health and turning them into carriers. The threat is not apparent to some citizens, however, so they resist their government's initial attempts to eradicate the invader

Fact: Residents did not know their legal rights. About 300,000 citrus trees were cut before Judge Fleet's ruling stopped the cutting of exposed trees. He found this was a violation of Florida's laws and due process. The IFO's didn't even let homeowners know that their trees were being cut down. The 1900 ft policy had simply been declared by the Commissioner, instead of being part of the rules which requires public meetings to discuss the rules. It was also brought out during the hearings that, according to Dr. Gottwald, the 1900 ft policy had been decided upon in December 1998, by a secret meeting among grove owners, regulators citrus industry leaders and researchers. 

Myth: As the stalemate grows, the invader threatens to decimate the state. The invader is citrus canker, a bacterial disease that attacks citrus trees, first disfiguring and then destroying them. It slipped into the state in the mid-1990s, apparently through the Miami airport, and has spread north through Broward County.

Fact: Citrus canker does not disfigure or destroy a citrus tree. Even the Department has been clear on this. It can blemish the fruit. Nobody knows whether this is a reemergence of the previous epidemic or a reintroduction. DNA analysis definitely shows minor genetic differences in the "A" strain today. Nobody can say with certainty that these genetic differences did or did not exist in the previous epidemic. Detailed DNA analysis was not routinely done on samples in the prior epidemic, and ACC can mutate. 

Myth: The proven eradication method is admittedly harsh. When a tree shows the telltale lesions on its leaves or fruit, the Florida Department of Agriculture digs up and destroys the tree and every other citrus tree (even those that appear healthy) in a 1,900-foot radius of the infected tree. Residents with backyard fruit trees in South Florida objected to the tactic, and the Agriculture Department did appear to be heavy-handed in early stages of the fight against canker. But residents are reimbursed: $100 for the first tree and $55 per tree after that. And they are allowed to replant two years after the canker is gone.

Facts: There is nothing "proven" about 1900 ft and the evidence is mounting that this is an extreme measure to take in controlling canker. Most of the exposed trees, uncut since Nov 2000 have not turned positive. The USDA states in their accomplishment report, of the 200,000 exposed citrus trees (which according to the department are trees which in time will show symptoms) there are 50 to 150 positive citrus trees per week that are found infected. It does not appear that for the vast majority of these trees are "trees which in time will develop symptoms of canker". FDACS has consistently refused to provide any information on the new finds. 

No checks are being mailed to residents.The first $100 is in Walmart certificates. The per tree payments is a joint program between the USDA and the FDACS. The USDA is just about out of money and has a backlog of claims. Replanting time is two years from the very last discovery in the quarantine area. This could 3-5 years from now, considering what happened in Manatee County (new discovery after 20 months).

Myth: A handful of residents resolved to stop the state effort, and they nearly succeeded. Three legal challenges in Broward County have slowed the program. The state can still destroy trees that show signs of canker, but not nearby trees that appear to be healthy. 

Fact: The program was halted for two weeks in Broward under a temporary injunction. After November 2000, the Department filed in Appeals Court-delaying the program for 8 months instead of making the program workable. The Department stubbornly refused to adopt a rule for 12 months after Judge Fleet (and later Judge Laningham) told them that the 1900 ft had to be in their rules. They did not want to adopt a rule, because they knew it could be challenged. 

It is noted that the Appeals court sided with the Department in June 2001 and based on the Department's arguments, the case went to the Administrative Court. The program has not been "hog-tied", as Mr. Bronson put it, by Broward County but by the Department's own refusal to operate within the law. 

Myth: The arguments against the eradication effort are based on emotion. It is upsetting to lose a prized citrus tree. But the state has science on its side. A peer-reviewed study by federal and state scientists proved that 95-percent of the canker bacteria spreads within 1,900 feet of an infected tree. A nearby tree can become infected -- and more important, be a carrier -- before the cankers appear. 

Fact: No proof exists. No where in draft documents distributed by the Department is there any recommended "eradication radius". The statement "95% of the canker bacteria spreads within 1900 ft of an infected tree" is pure PR from the Department. It is not contained in Dr. Gottwald's testimony, in any of his presentations, nor in the "interim report" prepared in Oct 1999 nor in the current manuscript. It is only found on the Department's website and brochures.

Myth: While state law allows the Agriculture Department to destroy trees that harbor and are "exposed to disease," two judges have rejected the state's tactics because the rules do not specifically mention the 1,900-foot zone. Meanwhile, a state map shows the spreading threat, with blotches of canker-infected trees now showing up in Palm Beach County. 

Fact: The Department maps never show single trees, only 1900 ft circles drawn around "suspected" trees. One such owner, came forward in November 14, 2001 to the Public Hearing, wanting to know why the citrus tree he had bought two weeks ago in Loews, now was condemned with Citrus Canker. The Department wrote me that this was a false identification, that the tree had Citrus Bacterial Spot. But the circles are drawn and no one can contest them because the data is unavailable.

The Department has refused to provide any information on new positive trees. I have requested and been refused basic information on the Palm Bay discovery in Brevard County. One lesion on one tree is enough to draw a circle enclosing 0.40 square miles. 

Myth: The Florida Legislature can resolve the problem -- and should, as quickly as possible. Two bills (HB 1539 and SB 1926) address the issue. The House bill is responsive and would define "exposed to disease" as any tree within 1,900 feet. The Senate bill, on the other hand, would put another barrier in front of the Agriculture Department, requiring it to get a warrant signed by a judge for each property on which it wants to remove a tree. That could amount to thousands of warrants a day.

Fact: Senator Geller's bill, SB 1926 has now been amended with the warrant clause removed. The prior warrant clause stated that warrants "may" be used (not required), however the preconditions to issue a warrant made this impossible, similar to a "life vest loaded with lead". 

FDACS objection to SB 1926 as as originally drafted, was it did not change the definition of an"exposed" tree (a tree which will develop symptoms over time). The Department changed that to any tree within their 1900 ft eradication circle to get out of defending their policy in Court on April 16, 2002. 

Myth: Here is what is at stake: If the state fails to stop the march of citrus canker, it could reach commercial groves in Central and South Florida. If canker appears on that fruit, the state would have to stop exporting fruit. Once a significant number of trees declined and began to die, both the juice and fruit industries would be under serious economic strain. Meanwhile, many backyard trees that some residents are trying to save would have already died. 

Fact: There is no known case of citrus canker killing a tree in the US. Trees in Florida are not dying of citrus canker. Exports to most countries will continue even if every grove the state was under quarantine which is highly unlikely. China, Brazil and Argentina have canker and they export fruit around the world. 

A hearing has been set for April 16, 2002 in Admin Court to examine the science of the 1900 ft rule in front of a judge. The Department has said that the 1900 ft policy has been examined and reviewed by the top scientists in the country. They can draw on any of these experts to testify. The municipalities have at best, two retired pathologists. 

The Department has no intention of appearing in court and defending their policy. Can their science be so weak, as it will not stand up to this legal challenge? If this science is so weak, maybe it should not be part of Florid Statutes. 

The Department continues the absurd notion that nothing less that their radical cutting program can possibly succeed.

Myth: The Florida citrus industry is valued at $9-billion. It is one of the state's most important economic engines. Yes, the cure for citrus canker is upsetting. But failure in the fight against disease is much worse. 

Fact: Fresh grapefruit on-tree value is estimated to be $156 million dollars by the Florida Agricultural Service System. The idea that millions or billions might be lost is far-fetched. The next wave will cost taxpayers about $100 million dollars, with $60 million from State money and $40 million in Federal dollars.

What is upsetting is the extreme measures that the Department and now the legislators have gone to, in order to prevent a full examination of the 1900 ft policy and the supporting data by the courts. 

What is at stake is the right of the Department to "Go Anywhere and Do Anything" verses the resident's right to a balanced and fair policy. Before the clear cutting of citrus in Miami-Dade and Broward, residents deserve their day in court. 

Dave Lord

7-Mar-02