SSE wrote: > Dear Merla Barberie, > > Thank you for your e-mail concerning the USDA's Draft Action Plan for > the Noxious Weeds Program and possible ramifications for the programs of > Seed Savers Exchange. > We have carefully reviewed the plan, which deals only with noxious weeds > and invasives. The proposed plan does not include vegetables and apparently > would not impact Seed Savers' work in any way. We have no way of knowing, > however, if this is USDA's first step in gradually restricting other plants > as well, which is apparently what J. L. Hudson is attempting to stop right > now by sending his warning to 1,400 nurseries and specifically mentioning > SSE. > Thank you for your concern, but we do not think that this will affect > the efforts of the Seed Savers Exchange. > > Best wishes, > > Kent Whealy > Executive Director > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Merla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Kent and Diane Whealy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 1:54 PM > Subject: Statutes to ban exchange of seeds in Draft Weed Control Legislation > > > Kent and Diane, > > > > A certified organic grower sent me this. I need to know what you > > think. Are you aware of this? Do you need support? > > I am having trouble with similar legislation already in place for soil > > and plant amendments...$100 fee to register each soil amendment with the > > state. This is impossible for 501(c)(3) organizations like the > > Josephine Porter Institite. What say thou? > > > > Merla Barberie > > 1251 Rolling Thunder Ridge > > Sandpoint, ID 83864 > > > > > > J. L. HUDSON, SEEDSMAN, STAR ROUTE 2, BOX 337, LA HONDA, CALIFORNIA > > 94020 USA > > > > USDA Plans Severe Gardening Restrictions > > > > Direct quotes from USDA Action Plan > > > > "Clean list" - Everything not on government approved list banned. > > > > Penalties - $1000 for home gardeners, up to $250,000 for > > nurseries. > > Interstate movement of seeds - Prohibited without permit and > > inspection. > > > > Send objections to the USDA > > > > Write your representative (Sample letter) > > > > What President Bush says > > > > Your help is needed. The USDA is now accepting public > > comments on their 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. > > > > Send 4 copies of 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. > > > > 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 public comment period ends March 29th, but it is important to > > keep up pressure even after this date, particularly by writing your > > representatives. > > > > 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 > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > and E-mail them a comment objecting to the clean list. > > > > Also be sure to send 4 copies of 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. > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > 1.Such a policy requires adequate, scientifically verified methods > > of predicting which species would be > > "invasive," yet all scientific attempts at predicting > > "invasiveness" have failed. > > 2.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. > > 3.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. > > 4.It will result in greater usage of herbicides on our public lands. > > > > 5.It will do nothing to address the fundamental causes of "invasive" > > species - disrupted ecosystems. > > 6.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. > > 7.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. > > 8.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. > > 9.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. > > 10.The clean list proposal is a reckless & irresponsible expansion of > > an antiquated, cumbersome and inefficient > > bureaucracy at a time when government should be moving towards a > > streamlined and efficient future. > > 11.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 & 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. > >
