Roger Whitlock wrote: "Someone should have stood up at that meeting and pointed out that "zero risk" is always unobtainable, that tolerance of a huge number of false positives is contrary to the ideals on which the American republic is founded (and is akin to "guilty until proven innocent"), and will simply encourage smuggling." I agree with the sentiment and particulars Roger gives here. In the present case we are asked to trust that the accumulation of inventories of seed lists and living collections, with as yet unspecified verifying qualifiers, will serve the public interest and protect the environment. This "white list" will automatically create a corresponding "black list". What criteria will be used and whose proof of burden will be allowed to facilitate the entry of the black-listed plants? What about the difficult issues of taxonomy and nomenclature? What this exercise in cat-herding fails to address entirely is the most important front line defense against unwanted exotic organisms: competent, well-trained staff at points of entry. This is a difficult job since most inspection work does not involve "botanical" merchandise but rather large commercial consignments. How much training and knowledge should we expect from these staff? How much do they receive now? Is the new white list/black list designed to lighten their work load, or even allow scaling back of plant inspecting staff? In 2007 the Agriculture Deptartment invited comments on their proposed changes to the process of importation, with a primary focus on potential invasives. Many cogent entries were posted, all with a different point of view, but I have been unable to relocate this site after it was 're-shuffled'. If I find it I will add it to this thread. Whether those comments, which were overwhelmingly sympathetic to growers and collectors, had any effect on the process or the outcome is unclear. It is distressing to hear that following the Australian model is in the works. The outstanding plantsmanship of the Australians is in spite of their government's extreme policies on plant importations. Those policies may be justifiable, but they are extreme. I have been told by growers there that the process to import a plant that is not on The List involves extensive paperwork for each species or variety and months of quarantine, all in addition to the usual travails of horticulture. It is quite costly as well. While invasive plants are a reality, no cost-benefit analysis on a national or regional basis has not been entertained by these agencies as far as I am aware. In addition, the case can be made and should be made that a majority of plants we term "invasive" are in fact opportunists that could not or would not progress were it not for the facilitative activities of man. Dylan Hannon