TED Case Studies

BASMATI

CASE NUMBER: 493CASE MNEMONIC: Basmati

CASE NAME: India-US Basmati Rice Dispute

Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA)

I. Identification

1. The Issue

In late 1997, an American company RiceTec Inc, was granted a patent by the US patent office to call the aromatic rice grown outside India 'Basmati'. RiceTec Inc, had been trying to enter the international Basmati market with brands like 'Kasmati' and 'Texmati' described as Basmati-type rice with minimal success. However, with the Basmati patent rights, RiceTec will now be able to not only call its aromatic rice Basmati within the US, but also label it Basmati for its exports. This has grave repercussions for India and Pakistan because not only will India lose out on the 45,000 tonne US import market, which forms 10 percent of the total Basmati exports, but also its position in crucial markets like the European Union, the United Kingdom, Middle East and West Asia. In addition, the patent on Basmati is believed to be a violation of the fundamental fact that the long grain aromatic rice grown only in Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh is called Basmati. According to sources from the Indian Newspaper, Economic Times, "Patenting Basmati in the US is like snatching away our history and culture."(1)

2. Description

Basmati rice means the "queen of fragrance or the perfumed one." This type of rice has been grown in the foothills of the Himalayas for thousands of years. Its perfumy, nut-like flavor and aroma can be attributed to the fact that the grain is aged to decrease its moisture content. Basmati, a long-grained rice with a fine texture is the costliest rice in the world and has been favored by emperors and praised by poets for hundreds of years. According to the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), India

is the second largest producer of rice after China, and grows over a tenth of the world's wheat. In 1993, Basmati rice attracted the highest premium because it is a very-long grained rice, with an aroma of its own which enhances the flavors its mixed with. 

The Rice Patent

RiceTec Inc, was issued the Patent number 5663484 on Basmati rice lines and grains on September 2, 1997.In abstract, "the invention relates to novel rice lines and to plants and grains of these lines. The invention also relates to a novel means for determining the cooking and starch properties of rice grains and its use in identifying desirable rice lines. Specifically, one aspect of the invention relates to novel rice lines whose plants are semi-dwarf in stature, substantially photoperiod insensitive and high yielding, and produce rice grains having characteristics similar or superior to those of good quality Basmati rice. Another aspect of the invention relates to novel rice lines produced from novel rice lines. The invention provides a method for breeding these novel lines. A third aspect...relates to the finding that the starch index (SI) of a rice grain can predict the grain's cooking and starch properties, to a method based thereon for identifying grains that can be cooked to the firmness of traditional Basmati rice preparations, and to the use of this method in selecting desirable segregants in rice breeding programs." (2)

Importance of Rice on Indian and Pakistan Economy

Rice is an important aspect of life in the Southeast and other parts of Asia. For centuries, it has been the cornerstone of their food and culture. During this period, farming communities throughout the region developed, nurtured, and conserved over a hundred thousand distinct varieties of rice to suit different tastes and needs. It is for this reason that patenting of Basmati by RiceTec Inc. is perceived as not only intellectual property and cultural theft, but it also directly threatens farm communities in Southeast Asia. According to Dr Vandana Shiva, director of a Delhi-based research foundation which monitors issues involving patents and biopiracy, the main aim for obtaining the patent by RiceTec Inc. is to fool the consumers in believing there is no difference between spurious Basmati and real Basmati. Moreover, she claims the "theft involved in the Basmati patent is, therefore, threefold: a theft of collective intellectual and biodiversity

heritage on Indian farmers, a theft from Indian traders and exporters whose markets are being stolen by RiceTec Inc., and finally a deception of consumers since RiceTec is using a stolen name Basmati for rice which are derived from Indian rice but not grown in India, and hence are not the same quality."(3) 

In fact, Basmati rice has been one of the fastest growing export items from India in recent years. In the year to March 1997, India exported more than half a million tonnes of Basmati to the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, Europe and the United States, a small part of its total rice exports, but high in value. More substantively, Indian farmers export $250 million in Basmati every year and U.S. is a target market. (4) RiceTec Inc. had attempted to sell its long-grain rice in Europe under such brand names as 'Texmati' and 'Kasmati' but not as Basmati. However, if the patent is not revoked, RiceTec Inc., can now sell its rice under the brand name Basmati which will definitely cut into India's and Pakistan's global market share, especially as the rice grown in the US could be sold cheaper than the Indian and Pakistani varieties. 

The Government of India's response to the Patent

In an official release, the government of India reacted immediately after learning of the Basmati patent issued to RiceTec Inc., stating that it would approach the US patent office and urge them to re-examine the patent to a United States firm to grow and sell rice under the Basmati brand name in order to protect India's interests, particularly those of growers and exporters. Furthermore, a high level inter-ministerial group comprising ofrepresentatives of the ministries and departments of commerce, industry, external affairs, Council for scientific and industrial research (CSIR), Agriculture, Bio-technology, All India Rice Exporters Association (AIREA), APEDA, and Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) were mobilized to begin an in-depth examination of the case. The contents and implications of the patent are currently being analyzed in consultation with patent attorneys and agricultural scientists. The government of India is particularly concerned about the patenting of Basmati because of an earlier case where the US granted a patent to two Indian-born scientists on the use of Turmeric as a wound healing agent. This case worked in favor of India because the patent was subsequently revoked after scientists of (CSIR) successfully challenged the patenting on the ground that the healing properties of Turmeric had been 'common knowledge' in India for centuries. There is a clause in US patent laws that will accept any information already available in published or written form anywhere in the world as 'common knowledge'. As a result, India was able to furnish published

evidence to support their case that the healing characteristics of Turmeric is not a new invention and as such cannot be patented. 

In the presence of widespread uprising among farmers and exporters, the nation of India as a whole feel confident of being able to successfully challenge the Basmati patent by RiceTec Inc.

According to the Economic Times of India, the law firm of Sagar and Suri who won the Turmeric patent case and presently representing the government against RiceTec Inc. in existing cases, said; "RiceTec has got a patent for three things: growing rice plants with certain characteristics identical to Basmati, the grain produced by such plants, and the method of selecting the rice plant based on a starch index (SI) test devised by RiceTec Inc." The lawyers plan to challenge this patent on the basis that the above mentioned plant varieties and grains already exist and thus cannot be patented. In addition, they encountered some information from the US National Agricultural Statistics Service in its latest Rice Year book 1997, released in January 1998, which states that almost 75 percent of US rice imports are the Jasmine rice from Thailand and most of the remainder are from India and Pakistan,"varieties that cannot be grown in the US" This piece of information is rather interesting and can be used as a weapon against the RiceTec Basmati patent. (5)

Legal procedures of Obtaining a Patent in the US and India

The law firm representing India in the dispute, Sagar and Suri, criticized the procedures for granting patents in the US claiming it is diametrically opposite to the one followed in India and Europe. According to them, India first examines a patent application, then widely publishes it for third parties to challenge, and only then grants the patent. However, the US keeps the patent application a closely guarded secret and grants it without allowing other parties to challenge it. After the patent has been granted, third parties are then allowed to petition against the patent as India is currently doing in the Basmati case. This criticism clearly illustrates the shortfalls in the patent process in the US that ultimately needs to be revised to prevent future cases like this from occurring. (6)

TRIPS and World Trade Organization

Indians feel that the US government's decision to grant a patent for the prized Basmati rice violates the International Treaty on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The president of the Associated Chambers of Commerce (ASSOCHAM) said Basmati rice is traditionally grown in India and Pakistan and granting patent to it violated the Geographical Indications act under the TRIPS. The TRIPS clause defines Geographical indication as "a good originating in the territory of a member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin." As a result, it is safe to say Basmati rice is as exclusively associated with India and Pakistan as Champagne is to France and Scotch Whiskey is to Scotland. Indians argue that just as the US cannot label their wine as champagne, they should not be able to label their rice Basmati. If the patent is not revoked in the US because unlike the Turmeric case, rice growers lack documentation of their traditional skills and knowledge, then India as have been urged by many activist in the field should take the case to the WTO for an authoritative ruling based on the violation of TRIPS. (7)

In the wake of the problems with patents that India has experienced in recent years, they have now realized the importance of enacting laws for conserving biodiversity and controlling piracy

as well as intellectual protection legislation that conform to international laws. There is a widespread belief that RiceTec Inc., took out a patent on Basmati only because of weak, non-existent Indian laws and the government's philosophical attitude that natural products should not be patented. According to some Indian Experts in the field of genetic wealth, India needs to formulate a long-term strategy to protect its bio-resources from future bio-piracy and or theft. (8) 

India and Pakistan who are joining hands to tackle the crisis have a strong case against RiceTec Inc. British traders are also supporting India and Pakistan. According to Howard Jones, marketing controller of the UK's privately owned distributor Tilda Ltd, "True Basmati can only be grown in India or Pakisatn. We will support them in any way if its necessary." (9)The Middle East is also showing support by only labeling Indian or Pakistani rice as Basmati. The case is still unfolding and it will be interesting to find out what happens in the end once the government and government agencies have gathered the necessary data and information to support their case and to prevent their cultural heritage from being taken away from them.

II. Legal Clusters

5. Discourse and Status: Disagreement and Allegation

6. Forum and Scope: Bilateral

7. Decision Breadth: Three; India, Pakistan and US

8. Legal Standing: Treaty

 III. Geographic Clusters

9. Geographic Locations

a. Geographic Domain: ASIA

b. Geographic Site: South Asia

c. Geographic Impact: India and Pakistan

10. Sub-National Factors: No

11. Type of Habitat: Temperate

Every crop species has its own ecological requirements. Rice is grown under a damp warm climate. A temperature range of 20ºC to 37.7º C (68º F to 100º F) is required for the optimum growth of rice. Rice being a semi-aquatic crop, grows best under submerged, waterlogged conditions. Rice is able to tolerate a wide range of soil reactions, but has a preference of acidic soils. Click here to learn more about the Climate and Landscape of Punjab where Basmati rice is grown.

 IV. Trade Clusters

12. Type of Measure: Intellectual Property Rights

The type of measure being utilized is accusing the RiceTec Inc and the US of violating the Geographical indication act of the TRIPS agreement in the WTO. But first, India and Pakistan would file a petition to the US patent office to re-examine the patent on Basmati claiming Basmati has been grown in their regions for thousands of years and is common knowledge in India and thus cannot be patented.

13. Direct v. Indirect Impacts: Direct

14. Relation of Trade Measure to Environmental Impact: None

a. Directly Related to Product: Yes Basmati rice

b. Indirectly Related to Product: No

c. Not Related to Product: No

d. Related to Process: Yes Bio-diversity loss

15. Trade Product Identification: Basmati rice

According to a major Indian exporter of rice,GN overseas, "Rice is the staple food of more than 70% of the world's population. The rice belt is distributed geographically over a wide range of conditions between latitudes 45 ºN to 40 ºS. However, 90% of total area under rice is situated in the wet tropical South and South East Asia. Among the rice growing countries, India has the largest area under rice in the world, accounting for about 31% of the total area under rice cultivation. India is producing about 80 million tonnes of rice annually."(10)

Method for Identification of Rice

Sl No.

CharacteristicsBasmati(in-mm)

Basmati (Paraboiled)

Parmal(PR-106)

Terricot

1Average Length of uncooked rice

7.3 7.5 7.0 7.6

2Average breadth of uncooked rice

1.9 1.9 2.1 1.9

3Average L/B ratio of uncooked rice

3.8 3.9 3.3 4.0

4Average length of cooked rice

8.9 8.9 5.6 8.0

5Average breadth of cooked rice

2.2 2.2 3.1 3.0

Source: G.N Overseas quality rice exporters 

General Characteristics and Specifications of Rice

Type of Rice GradePurity Level

Grain BrokenMoisture

Foreign Matter

Red Streak & Wary Grains

BasmatiSuperior

90% 7mm less than 14% Nilless than 1%

  & above (Avg.)   1%      

  A 85% 6-7mmless than 1%

14% Nilless than 1%

  B 75% 5-7mmless than 1%

14% Nilless than 1%

Non Basmati Terricot 100%     14% Nilless than 1%

  PR 106 100%     14% Nilless than 1%

  IR8 100%     14% Nilless than 1%

Source: G.N Overseas

16. Economic Data

India exports about 400,000 - 500,000 metric tons of Basmati annually. In 1996-97, India exported approximately 523,000 tonnes of Basmati to Europe.

17. Impact of Trade Restriction: High

18. Industry Sector: Food

19. Exporters and Importers: India and many; US and many.

 V. Environment Clusters

20. Environmental Problem Type: Habitat Loss

21. Name, Type, and Diversity of Species: Many

22. Resource Impact and Effect: Low and Regulatory

23. Urgency and Lifetime: Low and 1 year

24. Substitutes: Like products

 VI. Other Factors

25. Culture: Yes

As mentioned earlier, Basmati is a slender, aromatic long-grain rice with a nutty taste delicate texture that grows best in the valleys of Punjab in the Himalayan mountains . For countless generations, Punjabi (refer to the map above for its location) farmers in the region nurtured the fragrant seeds while improving the yield. Basmati originated in Punjab which spans areas of both India and Pakistan. This explains why its only grown in those two countries. Punjab is one of the smallest states in India. However, its geology that is, its deep and fertile soils as well as its exceptional climate has a far reaching impact on India's economy. 

Basmati is viewed as a cultural heritage. Below are pictures of different varieties of Basmati rice produced by an indian company Khushi Ram Behari Lal Ltd. This company, in their profile, claim that four generations of the family have been in the rice business since 1889. This further supports the argument that Basmati has existed in India and Pakistan for centuries and as such cannot be patented by the US. 

Three Varieties of Basmati Rice

Golden Parboiled Raw Basmati Silky Raw Basmati

Basmati

Case Studies- 2MEXICO-U.S. AVOCADO TRADE DISPUTE

CASE NUMBER: 413

CASE MNEMONIC: AVOCADO

CASE NAME: AVOCADO DISPUTE

IDENTIFICATION

LEGAL GEOGRAPHIC TRADE ENVIRONMENT OTHER

A. IDENTIFICATION

1. The Issue

On February 5, 1997, the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) was scheduled to publish in the Federal Register a final rule that will allow the importation of Hass avocados from the Mexican state of Michoacan into 19 northeastern states and the District of Columbia from November through February, provided they meet certain safeguards specified by APHIS. This ruling follows an almost two- year struggle between the United States government, the government of Mexico and domestic avocado interests in the U.S. This ruling reverses a more than 80 year-old ban on avocado imports from Mexico.

2. Description

The importation of fresh avocados from Mexico has been prohibited since 1914, when U.S. plant health officials identified avocado seed weevils in Mexican orchards as pests of quarantine significance. In the early 1970's, Mexican officials requested approval to export avocados from the state of Michoacan; later, in 1975, the Mexican government also sought to gain entry for avocados grown in the state of Sinaloa. Both of those requests were eventually rejected by APHIS. Between 1990 and 1992, Mexico submitted three different work plans under which avocados grown in Michoacan could be imported into the United States, One of those work plans resulted in, in July 1993, APHIS approving the entry of Mexican avocados into Alaska under certain conditions. On July 5, 1994, the Mexican government formally requested that APHIS further amend its import regulations to allow importations of Hass avocados into the northeastern United States.

The possible introduction and alleged infestation of insect pests is perhaps the sole issue of contention. The USDA has proposed to lift the ban for their belief that, under certain conditions, the possibility of infestation can be adequately controlled through risk mitigation procedures. Using a "systems approach" to phytosanitary security, APHIS developed a series of complementary procedures all intended to prevent the introduction of avocado seed and stem weevils, an avocado seed moth, and three species of fruit flies that can infect avocados and other host fruits and vegetables.

The "systems approach", developed by APHIS in response to other possible pest infestations, consists of nine safeguards designed to operated sequentially to progressively reduce risk to an insignificant level. The components of a systems approach are:

Host resistance:

Fruit fly infestation of the Hass avocado is not known to occur outside of the laboratory.

Field surveys:

Field surveys for stem and seed weevils and fruit flies are conducted. This includes visual inspection, fruit cutting, and branch shaking at appropriate times during the growing season to determine the presence or absence of pests. Orchards will receive or be denied orchard certification for export on the basis of survey results. Surveys must show municipalities to be free of targeted seed pests at a 95-percent confidence level.

Trapping and field bait treatments:

Trapping and field bait treatments for fruit flies involve 1 trap per 10 hectares. If a fruit fly is detected, trapping level increases to 10 traps in the surrounding hectares -- 1 trap per 5 hectares. If additional flies are found within 30 days, export can continue only under bait treatments of the orchard(s) involved.

Field sanitation practices:

Intended to decrease the chances of weevil or fruit fly establishment, fallen -- i.e., over-ripe -- fruit picked up will be disposed of at least once a week to reduce the risk of fruit fly attacks. Pruning and dead branch removal will help to prevent weevils, particularly stem weevils.

Post-harvest safeguards:

Post-harvest safeguards to prevent fruit flies and other hitchhiking pests will include tamps to cover harvested fruit, timely movement to packinghouse, and screening and double-door systems in place in packinghouse.

Winter shipping only:

Shipping only in the winter will prevent fruit flies and other pest activity -- i.e., breeding and feeding. Import during the winter months in the United States further decreases the risk of pest escape and survival.

Packinghouse inspection and fruit cutting:

Packinghouse inspection and fruit cutting is designed to detect weevils or fruit flies. Detection of pests will mean the shipment can not be exported.

Port-of-arrival inspection:

This inspection is meant to detect pests by 1) sampling at least 30 boxes and/or 30 fruit cut per shipment by an APHIS inspector, 2) verification of phytosanitary certificate, that the shipment is from a certified orchard, and 3) paperwork specifying limited distribution to designated states.

Distribution limited:

Distribution will be limited to 19 Northeastern states and the District of Columbia. Any transported pests will not survive because of cold weather and the lack of suitable hosts.

Besides the risk of infestation to avocado and other host crops in the United States, the real risk is to domestic avocado growers who possess a virtual monopoly on the American appetite for avocados. California has about 6,000 avocado growers and 65,000 acres of avocados. San Diego county produces about half of all US avocados, which were worth $250 million in 1994. Mexico, though, has both higher yields and lower costs. Mexican costs are lower because of the wage gap between farm workers in the richer United States and those in the more impoverished Michoacan region of Mexico. Average Mexican yields are higher than California yields because the climatic conditions are more conducive to avocado growth in Mexico. As a result of the ban on Mexican avocados in the US, a box of US-grown avocados in the US sells for about $30, while a box of Mexican-grown avocados in Canada sells for about $8. If Mexican growers, who produce about 45% of the world's avocados, are allowed to compete in the US market, they could gain an export market estimated as highly as $60 million per year.

Before the USDA's Animal Plant Inspection Service issued its final rule on February 5, the California Avocado Commission, representing about 6,000 growers of a crop worth nearly $250 million a year, did everything but throw avocados to block the rule. California growers paid for full-page advertisements questioning the USDA's scientific conclusions in issuing the rule. The avocado commission played an active role in seven public hearings and filed a 200-plus page analysis opposing the rule. It rallied 1,500 growers to storm a USDA hearing. It had members of the California congressional delegation intercede with regulators.

After two years of debate, two studies and 1,751 out of 2,000 comments on the rule opposing the change, the government decided to make the change despite its negative ramifications. Those who commented in support of the proposed rule change, many cited the need for the United States to lead the way in the elimination of non-tariff barriers, which is how those outside the United States would characterize this import standard.

One major catalyst for change was agricultural exporters. The department maintained that the United States could not pit itself against the Mexican government any longer because the avocado ban was holding up exports of other US farm products. Exporters feared that the USDA's possible continued prohibition of Mexican avocados will result in a regulatory standard that will be adopted by Mexico, and perhaps other countries, thereby affecting access for US products. Industry officials feared that failure to adopt the systems approach will encourage Mexico to adopt similar standards of protection for US wheat, apple, peach, cherry, and other exports to Mexico. This could have caused major disruptions to US agricultural trade with Mexico.

3a. Related CasesTOMATO BALLAST MEDFLY

SUGAR HOOF

APPLE BANANA

NEMATODE NAFTA

3b. Keyword Clusters

Product: AVOCADO Forum: MEXICO Environmental Problem: INFESTATION

4. Draft Author: Mike Strollo (February, 1997)

B. LEGAL Clusters

5. Discourse and Status: DISagreement and COMPlete

True free trade does not exist between Mexico and the United States in avocados, or most agricultural products, a goal sought by the North American Free Trade Agreement. Until such a time, there will continue to be trade friction between Mexico, the United States and Canada.

We should also expect similar trade arrangements like the one on avocados; namely the widely suspected trade-off between approval for the importation of avocados and Mexican approval for the renewed importation of US cherries. Californian Avocado Commission (CAC) chairman Mark Affleck contends that the Californian Avocado Commission was trade-off to mollify other interests. The CAC gave a copy of a document, dated 5/28/96, to the San Diego Union-Tribune it says was written by the U.S. ambassador to Mexico. The note indicated that the decision to allow Mexican avocados into the United States was decided long ago, contrary to stated policy. The question remains as to whether the avocado agreement was decided upon on its own merits. Mexican officials have repeatedly tied US inaction on admitting Mexican avocados to issues affecting US exports of a range of other agricultural products to Mexico, including apples, peaches, nectarines and cherries.

6. Forum and Scope: NAFTA and REGIONAL

7. Decision Breadth: 2 (USA, MEXICO)

8. Legal Standing: Treaty

C. GEOGRAPHIC Clusters

9. Geographic Locations

a. Geographic Domain: North America (NAMER) b. Geographic Site: Western North America c. Geographic Impact: USA

10. Sub-National Factors: Yes

11. Type of Habitat: DRY

D. TRADE Clusters

12. Type of Measure: Import Standard [IMSTD]

13. Direct vs. Indirect Impacts: DIRect and INDerect

The measure will have direct impacts upon the avocado trade in the United States and Mexico. If the systems approach does in fact eliminate the allegedly possible infestation that the CAC suggests will happen as a result of the lifting of the ban, it may clear the way for imported avocados entrance into the rest of the U.S. market.

The measure will also have indirect effects on the agricultural trade in other commodities exported by the United States. With this agreement, cherries, apples, peaches and other U.S. agricultural products will be given freer access to the Mexican market.

14. Relation of Measure to Environmental Impacts:

a. Directly Related: YES AVOCADO b. Indirectly Related: NO c. Not Related: NO d. Process Related: YES INFESTATION

The measure may have possible indirect environmental impacts depending upon the effectiveness of the systems approach that the USDA has adopted concerning the entire importing process that Mexican avocados will have to go through to reach the U.S. market.

15. Trade Product Identification: AVOCADO

16. Economic Data:

AVOCADO COMPARISON

COUNTRIESWeighted Avg. Wholesale Price

Retail Price Avg. Yields Acreage Total Production

Mexico $0.28 per pound$8.00 (In Canada)

7.6 tons per hectare

220,000 acres

696,000 tons

United States $0.48 per pound$30.00 (In U.S.)

5.0 tons per hectare

65,000 acres 151,650 tons

Studies show avocado prices could drop 10% if 30 million Mexican avocados hit U.S. supermarkets. The opening of trade between the U.S. and Mexico could create a $60 million export market for the Mexicans and significant competition for U.S. growers.

17. Impact of Measure on Trade Competitiveness: HIGH

18. Industry Sector: Agriculture

19. Exporter and Importer: MEXICO and USA

E. ENVIRONMENT Clusters

20. Environemental Problem Type: Possible Infestation

21. Name, Type, and Diversity of Species

PEST SPECIES CLASSIFICATION

Name Type Diversity

Fruit Fly (Anastrepha ludens) Animal/Mandible/Insect N/A

Fruit Fly (A. serpentina) Animal/Mandible/Insect N/A

Fruit Fly (A. striata) Animal/Mandible/Insect N/A

Avocado Weevil (Conotrachelus perseae) Animal/Mandible/Insect N/A

Avocado Weevil (C. aguacatae) Animal/Mandible/Insect N/A

Avocado Weevil (Heilipus luari) Animal/Mandible/Insect N/A

Avocado Weevil (Copturus aguacatae) Animal/Mandible/Insect N/A

Avocado Seed Moth (Stenoma catenifer) Animal/Mandible/Insect N/A

22. Impact and Effect: HIGH and ALL AGRICULTural Crops

These pests would present a significant pest risk to U.S. crops if introduced, particularly in the southeastern and southwestern United States. APHIS, however, believes that with its systems approach, the possibility of infestation is negligible.

In the past, California has been beset with problems caused by the Mediterranean fruit fly. Since 1975, 12 medfly infestations have cost the state more than $170 million in eradication efforts and millions of dollars more in lost agricultural exporting revenue. California's $17 billion-plus agricultural economy is particularly vulnerable to the medfly: the state's climate is temperate, virtually matching that of the insect's mediterranean homeland; and its flora is extensive, offering the fly more than 31 million acres of commercial farmlands and innumerable gardens and fruit trees.

The female medfly drills nearly invisible holes in the fruit's skin and proceeds to lay up to a thousand eggs in her average 40-day life span. The eggs turn to larvae, which then dine on -- and destroy -- the fruit's pulp.

To combat infestation, California growers have utilized a number of methods concurrently. Officials spray the area with malathion, a pesticide, strip fruit from infested trees, and release hordes of sterilized male flies that they hope will breed the wild flies out of existence.

Californian growers also combat perceived infestation by vociferously maintaining that each appearance of the medfly is the result of medfly eggs or larvae hitchhiking inside fruit illegally mailed or carried into the state. Because much of California's produce is shipped overseas, especially to Japan and other Pacific Rim countries, federal and state officials have always gone to great lengths to reassure buyers that California is medfly-free and its fruit pure. If importers came to believe that the medfly was a permanent California resident instead of an occasional tourist, they would place permanent restrictions on the state's fruit. Growers would have to install expensive equipment to kill any possible larvae by freezing; they also might have to use high quantities of expensive pesticides, which carry the additional stigma of being anethema to California's environmentally conscious citizens.