Greetings Readers,
We are still very much here, but have been trying hard to get a clear handle on what is going on right now the with LBAM program here in California. We are still under a major threat from the CDFA’s toxic and deadly plan to spray and coat 12 counties with pesticides and other poisonous substances. The clearest explanation regarding, specifically, the aerial spraying of pesticides is that this will now be done over forests and agricultural lands.

This means incredibly dangerous toxins on your food, on farmworkers, on anyone living in or commuting through agricultural regions or forests and for anyone who visits forest for recreational purposes. The health risk are exactly what they were when CDFA was insisting that they would dump their carcinogenic chemicals on cities. The only thing that has changed is that they now intend to dump them on country people and nature lovers. They must be stopped from doing this.

Things You’ll Want To Know

From StoptheSpray.org:

CDFA latest: Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the LBAM program: your comments are needed for this process, see suggested bullet points at end of this message. Highlights of the CDFA Notice of Preparation (NOP) :

LBAM program is now expanded to cover almost all of the state; in other words, CDFA is trying to get advance ok to treat in almost any part of CA for LBAM although treatments are currently planned for only 12 counties

As previously announced, treatments that may be carried out in urban areas include: release of sterile moths, pheromone twist ties hung in trees, ground sprays of Bt and spinosad, application of the pesticide permethrin to telephone poles and trees, and release of large numbers of parasitic wasps. Information about each of these treatments below at the end of this message. NOTE that property owners have the right to refuse any of these treatments on their private property.

Download the NOP at the CDFA LBAM web page under “Hot Topics,:
click on the Environmental Impact Report Notice of Preparation link

Recent broadcast on Channel 11 - State Agriculture Secretary and
Marin MD Ann Haiden and Mothers of Marin Against the Spray (MOMAS) on
the LBAM program:
http://video.nbc11.com/player/?id=278347
You will see that Secretary Kawamura manages to avoid answering most
of the direct questions that are posed to him, failing to say whether
or where aerial spray will take place for LBAM or whether the state
will complete an Environmental Impact Report prior to starting LBAM
treatments.

NOTE: Interesting language inserted into state budget bill, thanks to SF
Assemblymember Mark Leno, regarding LBAM funds:

“Of the funds appropriated in this item, no funding shall be expended
for aerial spraying for the Light Brown Apple Moth until toxicology
studies on the long term comprehensive health impacts of the
synthetic pheromones used in spraying have been completed by the
Office of Health and Hazard Assessment, Department of Public Health,
and The Department of Food and Agriculture and their results are
reported to the Legislature through a letter to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.”

This language may not survive as the Governor can remove line items,
but it sends a message nonetheless.

East Bay News - BRIEF SUMMARY OF CONCERNS ABOUT PROPOSED LBAM TREATMENTS

Below are the state’s planned treatment strategies with brief comments about the problems of each. (I know you all have lots more research on these items)

Aerial spray in forested and agricultural areas — the concerns are
the same as we have been arguing for months: the pheromone pesticide
to be sprayed (the specific product has not been announced yet) is
untested for long term human health risk, the spray is not necessary
as the moth has done no damage and does none in New Zealand and other
areas where good integrated pest management practices are used, and
scientists say the spray will not work anyway. Spraying forests and
ag areas still affects people who live, work, and recreate in those
areas, and the impacts on the ecosystem are unknown.

Permethrin - permethrin is a human carcinogen and neurotoxin and is
toxic to bees and cats. The state plans to “splat” it onto telephone poles in
a sticky goo laced with pheromone to attract LBAM.

Bt and Spinosad ground spray — although these two products are used
in organic agriculture, they are not appropriate for residential/
urban settings. Bt sprayed in New Zealand (for a different insect,
not LBAM) resulted in many health complaints (see http://
www.peoplesinquiry.co.nz/). Spinosad is detrimental to bees, aquatic
organisms, and native trichogramma wasps which prey on many insects
including LBAM (and which, ironically, are part of CDFA’s program as
well)

Twist ties - pheromone twist ties are placed in large numbers
(hundreds per acre) to emit a cloud of the same synthetic pheromone
that is the active ingredient of the aerial spray. No long term
human health risk testing, and risk of contact by humans and pets is
significant given the numbers of twist ties planned and the
likelihood that they can fall from trees. The Material Safety Data
Sheet for the twist ties says they are not safe to handle with direct
skin contact.

Sterile moths - the release of milions of sterile moths over short
periods of time is a huge disruption to the ecosystem. It will
likely result in a huge increase in predators in the area; once the
released moths die — within a couple of weeks - the predators will
be looking for other things to eat. Native moths? butterflies?

Wasps — releasing large #s of native trichogramma wasps will disrupt
local ecosystems. These wasps do not parasitize only LBAM eggs –
they also affect butterflies, among others.

East Bay’s SUGGESTIONS FOR COMMENTS TO SUBMIT ON THE RECENTLY ISSUED NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) FOR A PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PEIR) FOR THE LBAM PROGRAM:

1) The geographic scope now covers most of the state. Aerial spray is no longer the focus for cities, and ground treatments are now the predominant approach there. Sterile moth releases have been added to the near-term treatments.
Therefore, new scoping sessions should be held in the Bay Area and all potentially affected areas around the state. Adequate notice should be given for all scoping sessions.

2) The NOP by law must describe, among other things, “the project’s probable environmental effects.” This NOP does not do this, stating only that the project “is not expected to result in either cumulative or direct or indirect adverse effects to human health and the environment.” (p. 4, last paragraph). We know that at least 643 people reported illness following LBAM aerial spraying last year and that hundreds of seabirds were found dead and an unusually large red tide followed
spraying as well. We know the negative health and environmental effects of the pesticides Bt, spinosad, and permethrin that are listed above in the summary review of the treatments. Clearly there is potential for significant health and environmental impacts from this program. Comments should object to the inadequate description in the NOP of the probable environmental effects of the LBAM program, noting that that this violates California Environmental Quality Act
Guideline section 15082(a)(1).

2) A “programmatic” EIR is not sufficient review for a program with this geographic scope. To be sufficient it would have to address the issues and impacts to a degree that would form the basis for decisions about impacts and treatments at specific sites to be treated in the program. If the state intends to use this programmatic
EIR as the only EIR for the program, that is absolutely not sufficient environmental review of the program.

3) Damage from last year’s spray has not adequately been investigated, and no further treatments should go forward before sufficient investigation has been done. The state’s report on the health effects is woefully inadequate, having analayzed fewer than 10 percent of the health complaints, and without contacting any
individual or physician who filed a complaint. Investigations of seabird deaths did not examine whole birds (only feathers were examnined), and investigators did not test for all the ingredients of the pesticide, only the active ingredient when the likely culprit in both the bird deaths and red tide was one of the other ingredients
(the surfactant). No investigation has been done of the effects of the spray on pollinators such as bees.

Scientists say the proposed treatments will not work to eradicate LBAM as its is too widespread in the state. CDFA’s expansion of the program to the whole state further underscores that LBAM’s presence is expected to be even more widespread, indicating even more clearly that it is established and cannot be eradicated.

SEND YOUR WRITTEN COMMENTS BY MAIL OR EMAIL TO
Jim Rains, Staff Environmental Scientist,
California Department of
Food and Agriculture
1220 N Street
Sacramento CA 95814
fax (916) 654-1018
email: jrains@cdfa.ca.gov.

OR YOU MAY TESTIFY IN PERSON AND HAND IN YOUR WRITTEN COMMENTS AT EITHER OF THE SCOPING HEARINGS:

Sacramento:
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
3:00 pm - 5:00 pm
California Department of Food and Agriculture
1220 N Street (Auditorium)
Sacramento, CA 95814

I thank everyone who put the above information together. It has been very hard to get facts about what is going on. One thing we can all be certain of is that CDFA is determined to move forward with their backward practice of poisoning people and our habitat with pesticides and synthetic chemicals for as long as they can make money doing so. We are still under a major threat. We still need to stop this.

I will post again when I can find further pertinent information, and I send good wishes to all my readers!
Mim

Trackback this Post | Feed on comments to this Post