A government effort to eradicate Hawai’i’s four non-native fruit fly species “lit up, exploded, then fizzled in about six or seven years.” That’s the way the effort has been described by Mike Kido, a former member of the Hawai’i Fruit Fly Committee, the state agency established to coordinate state and federal research into ways of overcoming U.S. Department of Ag–riculture quarantine restrictions on shipments to the mainland U.S. of island produce.
Since the HFFC’s start-up in 1987, the federal government spent some $15 million on efforts to eliminate the pests. Seven years later, the plan’s focus changed abruptly from eradi–cation to irradiation and other post-harvest treatments of fruit fly-infested commodities. Eradication efforts have all but disappeared.
While the state Department of Agricul–ture has taken the lead in this new effort, it has been aided by a quasi-public, state-financed entity, the Exotic Pest Insect Committee, which appears to have risen from the ashes of the HFFC in 1994. Since its inception, EPIC has spent nearly $140,000 of state money, with most of that in support of irradiation.
For decades, infestation by the Medfly, the oriental fruit fly, the melon fly, and the Malaysian fruit fly has forced Hawaiian pro–duce to be subjected to quarantine restric–tions. The HFFC brought together about 30 members of various agriculture-related enti–ties to address Hawai’i’s fruit fly problem.
The committee included representatives from the state departments of Health and Agriculture, the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and its Agriculture Research Service (ARS), the Uni–versity of Hawai’i College of Tropical Agri–culture and Human Resources (CTAHR), the Governor’s Agriculture Coordinating Committee, and others. In May 1991, the federal government appropriated $705,000 to CTAHR for environmental and genetics studies and $225,000 to ARS, which was charged with developing eradication strate–gies, research, and the logistics for imple–menting a program.
Kido, a research associate with the Univer–sity of Hawai’i’s Kaua’i Agricultural Research Center, describes the HFFC as “a loose-knit ad hoc committee” that was established to get the state involved and to coordinate efforts among the various participating entities. Four years after HFFC’s formation, the eradication program was foundering. “Everyone was fractioned and fragmented, and there was infighting,” Kido recalls. Despite some ef–forts to cooperate, political problems per–sisted, particularly with the ARS, he adds.
“The federal government did not have Hawai’i’s best interests in mind,” Kido says. “Mostly, it wanted to protect California and Florida from infestation. All of the research money for ARS was to protect California, rather than do what’s best for Hawai’i, which was developing a large-scale eradication program.”
In November 1991, Kido organized a Kaua’i conference to bring everyone involved together to discuss the major issues and prob–lems: goals, roles, policy, strategy, action, and the like. Despite the summit, difficulties per–sisted. This is evident in a May 4, 1992, summary update distributed to the HFFC’s Environmental Action Group, a subgroup organized to focus on the environmental impacts of eradication technology on non–target species.
The report refers to meetings held by the USDA, which was supposed to generate a guideline for action. “Such a document, al–though promised, has not materialized and some frustration was expressed by members,” the update stated.
Costly Losses
Money apparently was no object. The USDA had spent $2 million to build a facility at Barking Sands, Kaua’i, to serve as a base to release sterile insects, a practice also known as the Sterile Insect Technique (SIT), a key component in the eradication program. An additional $1 million went into the Wailua (Kaua’i) agriculture station to facilitate medfly releases.
But Roy Cunningham, the USDA-ARS director in 1993, was not supportive of SIT, Kido says, and terminated the project. As a result, there was no use for the Barking Sands facility, which was eventually returned to the Navy.
In addition to pulling out of critical eradi–cation research, the ARS left its O’ahu lab (which received $200,000 worth of renova–tions in 1990) and relocated to Hilo, an illogical and expensive move, according to Kido.
Kido says it became obvious there was no real federal interest in developing an area-wide program, and eradication efforts dropped off. “Everybody walked away,” he noted.
While the federal government had spent millions on this effort, the state also pumped several hundred thousand dollars through HFFC for CTAHR research, conventions, travel, education programs, and other ser–vices in support of eradication.
With the eradication program foundering, some in the agriculture community began rethinking the possibility of irradiation as a means of getting around quarantine restric–tions. In the late 1980s, the state proposed building an irradiation facility in Hilo to treat papayas. Insufficient funds killed the plan, but, at least in some circles, interest in irradia–tion survived.
A June 7, 1993 letter to Dr. Lyle Wong, the administrator for the state Department of Agriculture’s Plant Industry Division, from Stevie Whalen of the Hawaiian Sugar Plant–ers’ Association sets the stage: “Without a national commitment to the eradication pro–gram of the 4 alien fruit fly species from Hawai’i there is little incentive for Hawai’i to take the lead in any further efforts in this area….
“In the meantime, Hawai’i’s agricultural community needs a short-term solution to afford an opportunity for it to diversify into potential export markets, such as tropical fruit tree crops. The lifting of quarantines on Hawai’i’s fruit products as a result of the success of a fruit fly eradication program in Hawai’i is $100’s M and decades away. Other countries with tropical climates are already proceeding ahead with the development of their export fruit industries through the post-harvest treatment of their products. Either Hawai’i moves ahead in this area or in the establishment of fruit fly-free zones or gives up on the notion of developing any exportable commodities in this area for the near future.”
Barely a week later, much the same senti–ment was expressed in a letter from HFFC Executive Director Jon Okudara to Wong. Okudara concludes that in addition to devel–oping projects to address chemical registration requirements and environmental concerns, “We should encourage the implementation of post-harvest protocols, including irradiation, to increase the constituency for fruit fly eradi–cation. What is clear is that we should do something, rather than talk about what we should do.”
Something – Anything
On October 27, 1994, at the behest of the Department of Agriculture, Governor John Waihe’e restructured the Hawai’i Fruit Fly Committee into the Hawai’i Exotic Pest In–sect Committee. In letters to members, he instructed them to “promote the development and implementation of technology and procedures to allow the interstate and interna–tional movement of Hawai’i agricultural products.”
Waihe’e’s letter to EPIC members specifi–cally mentioned irradiation: The approaches they were to consider “include post-harvest treatment protocols, irradiation, and the es–tablishment and maintenance of fruit fly-free zones.”
Those invited to serve on EPIC included Wendell Koga of the Hawai’i Farm Bureau Federation; Eric Weinert of Hula Brothers, Inc., an exotic fruit grower and distributor on the Big Island; Michael Strong of Kilohana Farm on Kaua’i (who was charged in February with smuggling illegal immi–grants to work in his orchards); Dennis Teranishi, agricultural consultant to the Office of State Planning and former chair–man of the HFFC; farmer Larry Jefts; Alex Sou, general manager of Aloun Farm; Roger McKioskey, manager of Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawai’i) Inc.; Paula Helfrich, executive director of the Hawai’i Island Economic Development Board; Marvin Awaya, a “non-profit consultant” from the Pacific Housing Assistance Corporation; Gary Doi, acting chairman of the GACC; Letitia Uyehara, deputy to the chairperson of the Department of Agriculture; and Wong.
At the same time, Wong moved forward with a plan to ship untreated fruits to an irradiation facility in Morton Grove, Illinois.
Advance Work
EPIC’s first meeting was called to order by Executive Director Okudara on February 10, 1995. However, Okudara had apparently been acting on EPIC’s behalf months earlier, when he helped out with Wong’s plans to win USDA approval of a pilot irradiation pro–gram. In that program, the state DOA, the USDA-APHIS, Isomedix (a firm operating several irradiation facilities), and Carrot Top (a Chicago-area grocery), agreed to a plan to ship sealed containers of Hawai’i-grown fruit to Chicago for irradiation treatment and marketing. The objective was to set a generic irradiation dose for fruit fly-infested com–modities including lychee, rambutan, atemoya, and carambola.
At EPIC’s first meeting, Okudara – whose position as executive director seems to have carried over from the HFFC – gave a report on the pilot irradiation plan. Former HFFC chairperson Teranishi also resumed his duties although he, at least, was elected by unani–mous vote of the new committee members.
At that first meeting, members approved EPIC’s Articles of Organization and by–laws, which Okudara had drawn up. (In 1990, Okudara had also prepared the HFFC’s by-laws while he was a government affairs advisor with the law firm of Watanabe, Ing & Kawashima.) The committee approved an agreement for services contract with Okudara & Associates, Inc. “to administer the day-to-day operations of the Exotic Pest Insect Committee.” Okudara & Associates, Inc., is Jon Okudara’s lobbying business, which he incorporated January 3, 1995, mere weeks before the February meeting. EPIC agreed to pay Okudara & Associates, a total of $149,500 for the period from January 1, 1995 until the end of the 1996-1997 fiscal year.
Although EPIC’s articles of organization call for it to be run as a non-profit organiza–tion, it has not filed articles of incorporation – either as a for-profit or a non-profit corporation – with the state Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. – a “screw-up,” Okudara says, that the state Department of Agriculture is continu–ing to contest.
In April 1995, before any attempts to encumber funds were made, the committee spent $6,930.50 (apparently from leftover HFFC funds) on a trip by EPIC members Strong, Weinert, and Wong to Washing–ton, D.C., for “meetings with USDA/APHIS and USDA/ARS regarding the establish–ment of a generic dose [of radiation] and operations under the limited license for [irradiation] treatments,” according to in–formation Okudara gave to Environment Hawai`i. This trip was followed by others in July and October 1995. By the end of October, EPIC had spent $33,909.21 on trips and professional services for irradiation legisla–tion.
In the 1995-1996 fiscal year, EPIC was slated to receive an allocation from the state of $139,760. However, unexplained delays resulted in the contract between GACC and EPIC not being approved until late in the fiscal year. A May 10, 1996 Notice of Amendment to Sole Source Contract has the GACC asking the state’s Department of Accounting and General Services to extend EPIC’s contract termination date “from June 30, 1996 to April 30, 1997,” because, “Delays have pushed back the contract start date to May 1996.”
Okudara’s summary of expenses provided to Environment Hawai`i indicates that in addition to the $33,909.21 EPIC spent to promote irradiation, it also paid another $59,000 to Okudara & Associates for administrative and support services in 1995. All these expenses were incurred before EPIC received the first penny on its contract with GACC. Not until June 28, 1996 was the contract finally executed.
The contract’s compensation and payment schedule specifies: “The STATE shall compensate the contractor in three payments. SEVENTY THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SIXTY DOLLARS ($70,760) upon execution, FIFTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS upon receipt by the STATE of a progress report of the work covered by this agreement and FOURTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($14,000) upon submission of the final written report…
Okudara did not provide a list of any expenditures for 1996. However, he told En–vironment Hawai`i that, “The ending [1995] balance” – which he places at $84,382.43- “and $105,000 from 1996 funds that have not yet been released will be used to pay the debt to CTAHR. An alternative being explored is to have the funds that were inadvertently lapsed to be reappropriated.”
But Okudara’s accounting is puzzling. The 1996 ending balance includes the full $139,760 from EPIC’s most recent contract with the state – despite the contract’s not having been executed until 1996, and in spite of the fact that to date, EPIC has received payment of little more than half that amount. Exactly how EPIC has paid for its expenses is something Okudara was not able to explain to Environment Hawai`i. If any state official has voiced curiosity on this point, it does not show up in any correspondence made avail–able for review to this newsletter.
To overcome USDA quarantine, short of eradication of fruit flies, the state needs to have an approved post-harvest treatment protocol for each crop it wishes to export. Because other countries may eventually adopt these protocols, the state Depart–ment of Agriculture and others have argued that statewide eradication or fruit fly-free zones are also needed if Hawai`i is to maintain a marketing advantage over treated products.
Still, since its establishment, EPIC has focused mainly on irradiation as a post-harvest treatment. Here is a short list of EPIC’s work in support of irradiation, based on information provided by Okudara as well as documents in DOA files:
December 1994: EPIC helped arrange fruit shipments to Chicago for irradiation.
April 1995: Strong, Weinert, and Wong go to Washington for meetings with USDA’s APHIS and ARS regarding establishment of a generic dose of irradiation ($6,930.50).
May 1995: Isomedix senior vice presi–dent corresponds with Strong and Wong regarding the construction of an Isomedix facility in Hawai`i.
July 1995: EPIC pays for Carrot Top owner Jim Corrigan’s trip to Hawai’i for meetings regarding the marketing of irradi–ated produce ($1,895.25). Okudara flies to Hilo for meetings with the USDA/ARS re–garding post-harvest treatments (hot, cold, and irradiation) for lychee, rambutan, carambola, and other fruits ($201.80).
August 1995: EPIC votes to spend ap–proximately $15,000 for an ARS researcher to study survival of mango seed weevils in irradiated fruit and to pay “approximately $3,000” for one Julian Heron to negotiate with USDA/APIHS to help Hawai’i adopt Costa Rica protocols for mango and papaya (EPIC actually ended up paying him $7,744.93).
At its August 14, 1995 meeting, some EPIC members voiced concerns about whether farmers could “produce 20-30 mil–lion pounds of fruit to sustain an irradiator in Hawai’i” and raised the prospect of EPIC helping the farmers obtain money to ex–pand their farms to meet the volume re–quirements of an irradiation facility. The committee nevertheless formed subcom–mittees “to educate the community about the safeness of irradiation and the facility” and to set quality standards for the treated commodities.
Meanwhile, EPIC meeting minutes show that Wong and Okudara sought private support to bring an irradiator to Hawai’i, turning to Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate and Hawaiian Electric Industries as possible equity partners. (No one at either of these institutions seems to have taken the bait.)
October 1995: Strong, ARS’s Robert Paull, CTAHR’s James Moy, Sam Hugh of Ham Produce (the Honolulu food broker who put the shipments together), Okudara, Wendy Sanemistu (Okudara’s secretary), Deputy DOA Director Uyehara, and city council member Donna Kim accompany fruit shipments to Chicago. Paull investi–gates X-ray technology for mango weevil detection in Chicago and Knoxville, Ten–nessee. (Cost: $14,881.72).
Around this time, the committee also appears to have received assistance from Chauncey Ching, a former member of Sena–tor Daniel Inouye’s staff (and before that, professor at CTAHR). As reported in the February issue of Environment Hawai`i, Ching “drafted a letter, for Inouye’s signa–ture, to the administrator of the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), urging APHIS to expedite the rule-making process or a so-called ‘generic’ irradiation process for any and all fruits suspected of being host to the varieties of fruit flies found in Hawai’i.”
A Not-Quite-Done Deal
Lyle Wong reviewed the committee’s irra–diation promotion efforts at EPIC’s January 9, 1996 meeting, describing the approval of a generic dose by the end of the year as a “done deal,” while encouraging his team to keep producers “interested in the protocol while the DOA worked to get the generic dose approved.”
But by September 1996, the deal still wasn’t quite “done.” A proposal submitted by USDA/ARS for research on quarantine pests other than fruit flies called described a remaining “major bottleneck” to irradia–tion as a post-harvest treatment protocol. The proposal called for the ARS, CTAHR, APHIS and Stevie Whalen of the Hawai’i Agriculture Research Center (formerly the HSPA) to cooperate on an irradiation re–search project to survey other quarantine pests.
“A major bottleneck of this proposed treatment movement of irradiated Hawaiian tropical fruits is that the proposed irra–diation treatment at 250 Grays (25 krad) is based only on efficacy data of tephritid fruit flies with no data on other quarantine pests of medium to high risk.” These pests, as identified by USDA/APHIS, include green scale, the Egyptian hibiscus mealybug, blos–som thrips/yellow flower thrips, and the red wax scale.
“Pests collected from the field will be cultured on preferred hosts of the pests … or mass field collected for irradiation treat–ment,” the proposal stated. The projected cost for the work, scheduled to be done between October 1996 and September 1997, was $47,500.
Although this proposal was included in EPIC files obtained from the state DOA, EPIC’s involvement in this study is un–known. In that respect, it is typical of most actions undertaken by EPIC, which, al–though financed entirely by public money, does not seem to be held accountable for how the funds are spent by any public agency.
For example, by July 27, 1995, between EPIC’s first and second meeting, James Frazier of Ka’u Agribusiness and Rex Johnson of The Nature Conservancy of Hawai’i were somehow inducted into the committee. While the committee’s by-laws authorize members to admit to member–ship any person “nominated by a member and approved by a majority vote of the Committee’s members,” there is no refer–ence in the minutes of either of EPIC’s two meetings up to that point that this had occurred for Frazier, Johnson, or anyone else. Their names simply appear on a roster that accompanied a HFFC-EPIC review sent by the GACC to DAGS.
That roster also includes members of a scientific advisory committee to EPIC. Its members include Dave Lance, entomolo–gist, USDA/APHIS; Roy Cunningham, Tropical Fruit & Vegetable Laboratory, USDA/ARS, who was the director that ter–minated the sterile insect release project pre-EPIC; N.P. Kefford, then the dean of CTAHR; Wong from EPIC and DOA; Ken–neth Kaneshiro, University of Hawai’i; John Beardsley, a retired UH entomologist; Roger Vargas, USDA/ARS; Grant Uchida, DOA; and Glenn Hinsdale, USDA/ARS. There is no mention of this advisory committee in any of the minutes.
EPIC is also delinquent on the progress report it was to submit to the state. The report was due in November; it was not submitted to the Department of Agriculture until March 25, 1997, weeks after Envi–ronment Hawai`i first inquired about it.
The report provides little insight into the membership, expenditures, or activities of the committee. Rather, it describes re–search projects of CTAHR – a survey of fruit flies on Moloka’i, a study of the effect of lures and baits on non-target species, and a limited study of the survivability of fruit flies on eight species of “native and feral” plants.
In addition, the report – a mere three pages long (excluding short appendi–ces) – offers a three-paragraph summary of EPIC’s work in support of irradiation. At no time are the committee’s meetings, ex–penses, or even its members listed.
— Teresa Dawson
Volume 7, Number 10 April 1997
Leave a Reply