I was alerted by an acquaintance to an article published in an Oregon newspaper, The Bulletin, regarding Suterra’s potential plan to purchase 1500 acres of land in Bend, Oregon to build their new pesticide factory. I’m sorry I can’t link readers to the actual article – apparently you have to have a paid subscription to access it, but here is something I know my readers will wish to understand.
A Suterra representative is quoted as follows in the news article:
“Pheremone based pesticides don’t contaminate ground water or affect other animals or kill crop damaging insects”.
This will come as news to everyone in Santa Cruz and Monterey County who saw their watershed poisoned, their wildlife and pets killed and lost their health after being exposed to aerial applications of Suterra’s pheromone-pesticide, Checkmate, in 2007.
It is simply outrageous that Suterra is making statements like this, and a terrible mistake on the part of The Bulletin for printing this lie, the intent of which on the part of Suterra is clearly to deceive the public into believing Suterra’s presence in the community will not lead to the poisoning of residents, their habitat and their water.
Here in California, we know what Suterra’s products do to us, our wildlife, our domestic animals and our environment, and it is because of this that I am urging you to write to this newspaper and urge them to print a correction. The people of Bend need the true facts. If they are to protect themselves, they need to be up in arms and not permit this corrupt and incredibly dangerous corporation to take root in their innocent town. Just think of the health damage that may be done to them if Suterra is not stopped from turning Bend into their own private pesticide lab.
Please, if you have been physically or psychologically abused by Suterra in connection with the LBAM spray public health crisis, take just a few minutes to write to the author of the article and the newspaper’s editor to share what you know about Suterra and their ‘safe’ pesticides.
Peter Sachs
psachs@bendbulletin.com
Tim Doran
tdoran@bendbulletin.com
Urge these men to do their duty as members of the press by printing true, unbiased facts…not simply republishing the marketing pitches of special interest groups. Printing these kinds of statements endangers public health.
Here is my letter to these 2 gentlemen:
Welcoming Suterra To Your Community?
Dear Sirs,
I was extremely concerned when a friend in your community forwarded me an article printed in your paper regarding pesticide manufacturer Suterra’s attempted acquisition of 1500 acres of land in Bend, Oregon.
Of greatest concern to me was the quote you printed from Suterra claiming that pheromone pesticides do not contaminate ground water or pose a health risk to people and wildlife.
Unfortunately, California’s experience with the pheromone-pesticide Checkmate, manufactured by Suterra, has proven just the opposite. Following the aerial spraying of Checkmate on Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties in the autumn of 2007, the following damages were done:
1) The watershed was horrifically fouled with a yellow, foaming substance. This included the coastline, rivers and lakes.
2) More than 600 seabirds, including endangered species, washed up dead on the beaches.
3) Songbirds disappeared from gardens for weeks following the spray. In some areas, they have still not returned after nearly a year from the spraying.
4) Pets including cats, dogs and rabbits died. Fish in landscaping ponds died.
5) Beekeepers reported massive confusion and dieoff in their hives.
6) More than 600 families filled out illness reports after being sprayed. Complaints included respiratory complaints, irritation of eyes and skin, vomiting, diarrhea and the recommencement of menstruation in menopausal women over the age of 65. Upon citizen investigation, it was discovered that each of these symptoms were linked with known effects of the ingredients in Suterra’s Checkmate.
7) 2 formerly-healthy small children were hospitalized and nearly died of respiratory and heart failure after being sprayed with Checkmate. Both children now have chronic asthma and are being kept breathing with medication.
I am listing these basics of exposure to Suterra’s products so that you will understand that they are not, in fact safe, and that the people of Bend, Oregon will be in very real danger if Suterra is allowed to build their pesticide factory in the community.
The fact of the matter is, no studies have ever been done on the chronic (long-term) effects of Suterra’s products on human beings, wildlife, water or habitat. These pesticides were initially used on fruits and vegetables. Now, in California, they are spraying them on human beings with disastrous effects of the kind I have just described above. This is being done without any testing for chronic effects, so it is false to state that pheromone-pesticides are safe. In the absence of proof, that statement is a lie.
In closing, I would like to add that ‘Biotech’ is a marketing euphemism created to replace the term ‘Genetic Modification’ because the public reacted negatively to the idea of being exposed to genetically modified substances. It is up to the people of Bend, Oregon whether the want to allow GMO/pesticide manufacturers to infiltrate their community. My letter is written to you in hopes that you will present them with the true facts regarding Suterra and their products so that your community can make an informed choice.
Thank you for reading my letter.
Sincerely,
& etc.





18 users commented in " Suterra Plotting To Buy 1500 Acres In Bend, Oregon "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackbackthank you for writing and explaining the truth. its a shame hat people like this nab the press and tell them untrue things to promote their unsavory ativities.
and, i wonder why they ae planning to occupy so much space in bend, oregon.
i will write also,but wish i was aware of more places in oregon to write. maybe the governors office, but perhaps that person will prove to be like arnold.
Hi Solstice,
I’ve yet to hear back from The Bulletin’s editors. I’m really hoping I will and that they will, at the very least, write a follow-up piece featuring the truth about Suterra.
1500 acres is a huge piece of land, I agree. Perhaps they intend to use open land to test their products on? A horrifying thought.
It’s so nice to see you here and I’m glad to know that you are writing to the newspaper.
Mim
1. There isn’t enough documentable proof behind the symptoms that arose after the aerial spraying to publish them as fact in a journalistic paper. And aluding to them for the point of persuading the public to kick out Suterra is unethical.
2. If you’ve ever been to Bend, you would know that it’s not just a little town of rednecks. It’s a vary diverse and evergrowing community with MANY environmentalists like yourself that would dissaprove of this company moving in without their sketchy background.
The idea of posting a press release on your webpage is to inform the public of what’s happening. The Bend Bulletin, which I read on a very regular occassion, is an incredibly ethical and well documented local publication. They don’t write slam stories based on a few rumors of what happened in another state, so they post what they have and they let the public do the research. People like you help inform the public of what happened in California, and then they will take your information and the information from Suterra and the state departments who defend them and decide for themselves what should be done about it.
Welcome Christopher,
I appreciate you taking the time to comment, but call into question your statement that the reason The Bend Bulletin wouldn’t print a ‘slam story based on rumors’ is because they are ethical about providing well-documented information.
The Bend Bulletin was perfectly willing to print Suterra’s party line about the harmlessness of their chemicals. This is not only un-documented but egregiously false and the fact that the newspaper was willing to print this utterly false claim of Suterra’s can only result in your community being misled about a matter as serious as their health and their lives.
Having watched hundreds of Californians fall ill after being exposed to Suterra’s products, I felt it was my duty to let the Bulletin know about what happened here. We don’t want this to happen in Oregon. But, I’m sorry to say that the editors did not even have the courtesy to respond to my email.
All across this country, the major Genetic Engineering corporations are using the press as their vehicle for delivering totally false marketing messages to the public, and unless journalists have the smarts to see past this, they are being used as little more than marketers for Big Ag, pesticide manufacturers and GMO labs. The tactics these completely odious corporations use to deceive the public are merciless, and if newspapers like The Bend Bulletin don’t defend themselves from being used by these corporations, they are doing their communities a major disservice.
In this battle of public welfare vs. corporate profits, I think Bend has a stand to take, if anyone will be brave enough to let them know what is really at stake.
Thank you again for commenting.
Miriam
Re: “The Bend Bulletin, which I read on a very regular occassion, is an incredibly ethical and well documented local publication.”
As a resident of Bend and a subscriber to the BULL, I find that statement hilarious. The BULL is so conservative and pro-development it managed to spend to full columns endorsing McCain for President without ever using the word “Palin”.
Our fine City Council once again went behind closed doors and discussed selling land at Juniper Ridge last night. They emerged to quickly vote on the sale and funding of eight acres at Juniper Ridge in short order. Ground has already been broken. More at http://www.juniper-ridge-info.blogspot.com and further discussion in general (especially in the comments) at http://www.bendbubble2.blogspot.com
A couple of facts to straighten out: 1)Suterra only bought eight acres, not 1500. The 1500 acre figure is for the entire Juniper Ridge development. 2) Suterra is not creating that many new jobs, only five to ten per year. It is moving its current 50 or so employees out of their facility on the West side of Bend north to Juniper Ridge, leaving an empty building in an area where roughly 200,000 square feet of commercial property is currently vacant. Suterra’s jobs are better paying than most of the service jobs here in Bend.
Interesting stuff about the Checkmate spraying in California. We haven’t heard anything about that.
Suterra’s plans all along were to buy 8-10 acres of land. The company is already located in Bend where it employs 55 people. There have been no known reports of contamination — nor health problems in Bend residents — as a result of the manufacturer’s presence. Our original article on July 23 to which you refer clearly stated,
The sixth paragraph of a subsequent article, on Aug. 3, stated,
Interesting article and you certainly raise some issues that do deserve to be more fully researched. However, there is at least one glaring error in what you have written – Suterra did not, and never inteded to, purchase 1,500 acres in Bend. The actual figure is only 8 acres. I will look into your claims about health concerns as I was not aware of that.
Dear Bruce Ewert, Peter and Bruce,
Thank you for giving us a firm number of 8 acres. 1500 was the number reported to me originally with the original news of this.
8 acres is bad enough.
We are terribly sorry you’ve got Suterra there with you in Bend, and that your city fathers/council members have done nothing to prevent this.
Please, Bruce, do look here and elsewhere for information about the Suterra chemicals that were sprayed on Santa Cruz and Monterrey families in 2007. People were horrifically sickened and then dismissed by government agencies. We are never going to forget this, and it was because of this terrible action that I wrote about Suterra’s Bend land purchase in the first place.
I appreciate your comments.
The better informed Bend citizens can be, perhaps the less certain Suterra will be of their welcome in your town.
It’s kind of funny how everyone is so convinced that because some fish died and a kid got a cough that it is automatically the fault of the company who, to this day, has not had any illnesses from their own pheromone production. Pheromones are only a hormone that the moth excretes when it is ready to mate, not a deadly killing substance.
If anything the city of Bend should be applauding Suterra’s efforts to help create more healthy and organic crops, instead of having to eat an apple stuffed with pesticides. Perhaps there should be more ACTUAL facts, with real textual back-ups on your ideas of what the people of California claimed to experience after the spraying of the pheromones, before you make any assumptions of anything you have never personally witnessed yourself.
Dear Brittany,
I suggest you take a look at the long list of articles to the left side of this page. You will find an overwhelming number of articles which I have written and further sources which I have linked to regarding the very real health damages done by the spraying of Suterra’s pheromone pesticide on the families of Central California in 2007. Please, do educate yourself about this. Your uninformed comments, above, may be very hurtful to my readers, many of whom were made ill by the spraying. Likely, you are not intending to be hurtful and are simply not aware of the facts of this situation, nor this blog’s ongoing efforts to document the tragic damages done to the people of Santa Cruz and Monterrey and their environment.
I suggest you also further research Suterra’s products which are classified by the EPA as pesticides, and unlike the natural product created by insects as a biological process, are, in fact, laboratory chemicals with the ability to devastate animal and insect health.
I am very, very concerned that you have been led to believe that Suterra is a hero in the organics field. As an organic farmer, I can assure you that they are not seen that way by people in the organics community. Rather, they are on par with feared and despised corporations such as Monsanto, and are not worthy of praise in the field of organics.
I sincerely urge you to continue your own research regarding Suterra and their products, particularly if your live in or near Bend, Oregon. Your health is at stake.
I too am surprised by the reaction that the folks here have to the pheromone used by Suterra.
The compound that was used has a physical characteristic similar to wax. I have personally spent quite a bit of time around pheromones used by Suterra. In fact I have purified and synthesized some of these compounds. I can say that pheromones in general are not particularly hazardous. Some even have a generally pleasant odor. These compounds confuse the insects and make it hard to find a mate. Perhaps the best analogy would be perfume for insects. Because it confuses the insects by preventing them from finding mates it is considered to be an insecticide. The effect of Suterra’s pheromone is highly specific for the insect of interest (there are a wide diversity in insect pheromones) unlike a toxic agent which will kill all insects.
Consider that the pheromones used by Suterra are chemically identical to the compounds excreted by the insect. Certainly there is a lot more of these compounds released into the environment however the chemical involved here is not toxic as judged by extensive experimentation. The synthetic compound is characterized for purity (Usually 98+% pure), and any impurities must also be characterized as not toxic.
The compound used by suterra to control LBAM is a much better alternatives to toxic insecticides.
Welcome to VeganReader, Chris.
Thank you for taking the time to share your views on this subject as well as your experience in working with synthetic pheromones.
The product created by Suterra and used in 2007 by the California Dept. of Food and Agriculture as part of the LBAM program is, in fact, a registered pesticide … not an alternative to pesticide. One of its ingredients is a synthetic pheromone, combined with other so-called ‘inert’ ingredients. Unfortunately, far from being non-toxic, Suterra’s LBAM pesticide caused hundreds of families to fall seriously ill in California in 2007 and nearly killed 2 small children, as well as killing hundreds of sea birds, pets and honey bees.
The simple and complex effects of synthetic pheromones on life-forms other than moths are simply not understood, and have never been researched. The spraying of Monterey and Santa Cruz counties in 2007 was an illegal human experiment and the results were prolonged illness and fatality amongst human and animal subjects.
Suterra markets their pheromones as ‘alternatives’ to pesticides, when, in fact, Suterra is well aware of the fact that their products are legally registered pesticides.
I appreciate that you’ve taken the time to share your own understanding of these substances, Chris, but it’s very important to us that we respond with further information about these pesticides which are, in fact, incredibly dangerous.
I’m not familiar with the specific Suterra product, but for the most part, pheromone products–reproductions of natural hormones–are pretty safe. They are not intended to directly kill insects, but instead confuse their behavior by redirecting them from mates or food. Sort of like trying to pick a particular voice out of a crowd if everyone was shouting your name.
When there are health problems associated, they’re often from what the pheromones were mixed with for spraying. Pheromones are highly concentrated, and generally there’s not much in a mix that’s sprayed. They’re “pesticides” because federal law defines anything that can prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any pest as a pesticide. Not every pesticide is a poison. Silver, the same silver as is in jewelry, is used in some countertops to reduce bacterial growth. When used for that purpose, silver is considered as a pesticide.
For example, the description of a watershed “horrifically fouled with a yellow, foaming substance” sounds like a description of a spray adjuvant–intended to help spread the material and get it to stick to foliage–rather than the pheromone itself.
For those of you who’ve been researching the spraying in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties, did you find a list of everything in the mix that was sprayed? Look at the other ingredients and see what their health effects might be.
Welcome, Wolf Willow,
You are quite right that compounds of chemicals tend to be more dangerous (have multiple different effects) than single chemicals. However, I have now talked to multiple people with compromised immune systems who have suffered severe effects from being exposed solely to the synthetic pheromones contained, supposedly singly, in monitoring traps. Migraines, mental confusion, ear, nose and throat irritation and menstrual irregularities have all been reported to me after people have come into close contact with the traps.
There have also been some very concerning European studies done of the effects of synthetic insect pheromones on animals in Africa. Rage and previously undocumented violent behavior were the effects documented in elephants. Like so many things, effects like these may go long unnoticed in the general population, and first show up in children, the elderly and the immuno-compromised. In my opinion, a just society protects these elements of their culture first…not last.
I appreciated you coming to share what you’ve heard about synthetic pheromones and hope you will continue to research this. We will be doing the same.
Mim
[...] [...]
California Department of Food and Agriculture, California EPA, as well as Federal EPA give the term “pesticide” to any non-biological agent used to control, mitigate, or lower the population density of a pest in an agricultural setting.
So in other words, if you were to sell table salt as a method of controlling the common housefly by means of sprinkling salt over fly eggs to dry them out, it would have to be registered as a pesticide. Furthermore, the label on the pesticide salt container would have to say “CAUTION”, as that is the minimum signal word that can be used (There’s Caution, Warning, and Danger), and every pesticide container must have a signal word. It would have to be classified as EPA Class I, II, III, or IV toxicity (class I being the most toxic). So the message to take away from this is, just because something is registered as a pesticide, means that it doesn’t even have to be remotely toxic. So pheromones have to be registered as pesticides, even though they do not kill any pest.
Lures used in insect traps emit only the amount of pheromone that a single female insect of that species emits. If they emit any more, the males do not fly into those traps because the level of pheromone seems abnormal for them. They also can’t have any foreign or intert smells coming from them because that would also not seem normal for male insects, and they would not fly into that trap. So essentially, a insect trap lure is an artificial female. So explain to me how you would get rash and skin irritations from a lure, and not get rash and skin irritations from sitting in your back yard at night, with moths flying around, all of which are emitting pheromones.
Welcome, Barry,
Thank you for coming to ask about this. The chief difference between the natural pheromone released by moths and the chemical being used in both traps and twist ties is that the latter is a man-made substance. While the makers and users of this substance have called it a ‘pheromone’ and attempted to liken it to the natural substance released by moths, it is, in fact a lab chemical.
It’s good that you are researching this, and before you make up your mind that this chemical is safe, please spend some time on this page:
http://dontspraycalifornia.org/lbam.html#IMPACTONHEALTH
Scroll down to the 2 images of a woman holding a plastic bag containing the twist ties and read about adverse health reactions people have experienced after coming into contact with these toxic twist ties. Further instances of adverse reactions have been reported in Yahoo! Groups but the discussion is one that requires a login. I believe these reports and you can discern whether you believe them or not after you read them.
Finally, it’s important to point out that even the Material Safety Data sheet for the twist ties lists them as an irritant to the eyes and ‘harmful if absorbed through skin’. So, unlike the natural substance that has been produced by moths since moths first came into existence, the chemical on these ties is not natural and not safe.
Good luck with your further research.
Mim
Isn’t affecting the Eco system of any natural environment a bad thing, despite it being a natural or synthetic product?
You mention the disappearance of birds, who are vital to any natural habitat and growing of plants, yet everyone seems to want to immediately defend and only point, in reply to your original article, the effects they have had on humans, and have ignored the other problems this brand has created.
In my humble opinion, Nature is it’s own best pesticide. If these farms grew more variety, they wouldn’t need these alternative ways of reducing the bug population.
Btw. I got onto your article, as I was researching the hypocritical endeavours of the owner of Suterra, Lynda Resnick, who claims to be doing her bit for the environment and health research, despite being the owner of a bottled water company (Fiji Water), the Suterra pesticides company and POM Wonderful (plus a handful of other supposed ecological farms in CA). She would be more beneficial to peoples health, and to the World environment if she stopped running her businesses altogether!
Edo
Leave A Reply