A little over a year after the initial lawsuit was presented, a Federal Court in the District of Columbia vacated the USDA's 2024 decision to allow Chilean table grape imports to enter the US under the Systems Approach.
Published on September 30 by US District Judge Amir H. Ali, the ruling effectively reverses the decision that would have exempted the Andean country's fruit from being fumigated with methyl bromide for pest mitigation.
In his decision, Judge Ali labeled the initial authorization by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) as "arbitrary and capricious."
The judge argued that the agency only evaluated the Chilean request but didn't consider other methods, such as the use of alternative chemicals for fumigation.
"Some of the alternative fumigants had already been approved for other commodities, would have been equally effective, and, insofar as APHIS had concerns about the environmental impact of methyl bromide fumigation, would have had less environmental impact," he wrote.
Magistrate Ali's ruling also cited the lack of robust data to back up the USDA's decision. In that regard, he agreed with the plaintiffs (California Table Grape Commission, the National Grape Research Alliance, and the California Table Grape Export Association), who claimed the agency was basing the authorization on outdated research. They also argued that only summaries of the studies, rather than the complete data, were available for public comment.
"Without the actual data, it is impossible to say whether the agency’s summary is accurate or whether it may be 'drawing improper conclusions' from the studies," the decision says.
Finally, the DC district judge writes that APHIS failed to adequately consider the domestic reliance interests of US table grape growers, "whose businesses and own risk assessments of pest outbreaks had operated under the longstanding rule mandating methyl bromide fumigation before Chilean grapes could enter the US market."
APHIS responded to the plaintiff's claims by saying Chilean producers could still choose to fumigate and that the systems approach would "reasonably mitigate the risk of pests associated with Chilean table grapes."
"That is not a sound response," Ali wrote.
FreshFruitPortal.com contacted Iván Marambio, President of Chilean ag industry organization Frutas de Chile, who stated that the decision is not final and that the next procedural step is for the Court to issue a separate judicial order.
Once that is published, Chilean table grape exports to the US using Systems Approach will cease, and an appeal period of up to 60 days will open. However, in the Chilean camp, there’s still uncertainty.
"We don’t know if the resolution has an immediate effect or remains suspended until the appeal is resolved," he said.
The local industry is currently working with lawyers in the United States and the Chilean Embassy, as well as representatives from the USDA and APHIS, to fully understand the scope of the ruling.
"It strikes us as very odd that this is happening based on a long process, much more demanding than usual processes, which had a double opportunity for observations," Marambio said.
The president of Frutas de Chile emphasized that the Systems Approach was included in a negotiation that went beyond phytosanitary issues, as it also included the designation of origin of cheeses: "There were also conversations at the presidential level, both with President Biden and President Boric."
"It is something that worries us and that we believe involves aspects related to the issue of grapes," he said.
Regarding the actions that the USDA could take, Marambio indicated that, since it was a lawsuit filed against the organization, they are the ones who have to decide whether or not to appeal.
FreshFruitPortal.com also reached out to the California Table Grape Commission, but the organization declined to comment as this is an ongoing legal matter.
This is a developing story...
Read the complete court decision here:
2394000-2394726-https-ecf-dcd-uscourts-gov-doc1-045111666877
.
