By Kera Abraham

 

Head-patting may work in some situations. But when scores of his constituents in both Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties are contacting him with questions involving their health, Assemblyman John Laird wants the facts.

In a Sept. 24 letter to state Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura, Laird complains that the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) continues to polish its PR on the issue of aerial pheromone spraying – without pausing to allow for more scientific study, as he and other elected officials have requested.

“I cannot overstate that merely fine-tuning messaging… will be woefully inadequate to relieve public concern,” Laird writes. “Unfortunately, CDFA’s credibility among the public has now been severely strained.”

The state, in cooperation with the feds, is in the midst of a sexual assault on the invasive light brown apple moth (LBAM), which officials describe as an imminent threat to the state’s agricultural industry. Critics, however, note a lack of evidence that LBAM has damaged any crops in California yet.

Planes sprayed the Monterey Peninsula with a synthetic moth pheromone in early September, and a second spraying with a similar product is scheduled to begin Oct. 9. The treatment is slated for North Salinas, North Monterey County and Santa Cruz County in early November. Officials describe the pheromone products as harmless to all but the male moths, which, confounded by the omnipresent sex scent, are unable to locate females.

Officials assured locals at an Aug. 29 public forum that the state Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) would monitor the spraying. But a DPR memo dated two days earlier states that monitoring is unnecessary. In his letter, Laird asks the CDFA to clarify.

Kawamura and his staff showed up at Laird’s Sacramento office on Sept. 25 to personally respond, Laird says. It turns out DPR is doing some monitoring, but not very much.

According to DPR spokesman Glenn Brank, staff from CDFA, DPR and the county Agricultural Commissioner’s Office were on hand to monitor the first round of spraying. They collected rinse and tank mix samples to assess whether the pheromone product was properly mixed and free of contamination from other  chemicals.

They also laid 20 12-inch-by-12-inch cards on the ground across the treatment area to determine whether the spray was properly dispersed. The CDFA’s lab has not yet returned the results, according to spokesman Steve Lyle.

GPS data of the planes’ flight patterns indicate that pheromones were not sprayed outside the treatment area, and that pilots maintained a 100- to 300-meter buffer from National Marine Sanctuary waters, Lyle writes in an e-mail.

But officials did not collect any soil, air or water samples after the spraying, according to Brank. Nor did DPR assess effects on wildlife or human health. “EPA did not indicate any need for such monitoring,” Brank writes in an e-mail. “Residues from the mist would be so low that it’s possible we couldn’t detect them with monitoring.”

CDFA will continue sampling the tank mix and laying out deposition cards during future aerial pheromone applications, Brank says.

Critics counter that more extensive monitoring is needed due to the untested nature of the pheromone applications. Neither of the products being sprayed, Check Mate OLR-F and Check Mate LBAM-F, are registered for use in an urban area, but the EPA has issued an emergency exemption to allow it. The LBAM-F formula is registered for experimental use only.

DPR states that the products are toxic to aquatic invertebrates and fish and can cause some skin and eye irritation at full concentration – but that “low application rates and mitigating label language” minimize risk. “DPR has found no scientific data to support the notion that these pheromones are hazardous to humans,” Brank writes.

In his letter to the CDFA, Laird questions the science – or lack thereof – supporting the use of pheromones to disrupt LBAM’s mating. He asks for a written status report on relevant research done to date and a third-party review of whether pheromones are a safe and effective way to deal with LBAM.

Unsatisfied by the CDFA’s response, Laird contacted independent environmental and agricultural organizations to ask their opinions on the science behind pheromone spraying. “The irony is that the people who have weighed in are trustworthy and say it’s safe,” he says. “But the process – or absence of process – has raised concern.”