Santa Cruz County’s LBAM Slam Continues

Appeared in the Good Times Newsweekly

March 26, 2008

by John Laird

The controversy over the State Department of Food and Agriculture’s (CDFA) attempts to eradicate the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) has gained in intensity in recent weeks:

• a UCSC scientist’s fact-finding report called into question the very underpinnings of CDFA’s eradication plans, asserting that eradication is probably impossible and that ongoing management of LBAM could be largely handled through native predators;
  
  
• the California Certified Organics Farmers (CCOF) revoked their previous endorsement of CDFA’s eradication plans—a loss of a major agricultural supporter of the department’s efforts;
  
  
• CDFA staff e-mails were obtained by the Associated Press, which detailed a no-bid contract to a public relations firm with ties to the Governor—a contract that was designed to help CDFA with its communications on LBAM and which was abruptly canceled following the story;
  
  
• a San Francisco Chronicle front-page story involving the manufacturer of the product used in aerial spraying and the manufacturer’s campaign contributions;
  
  
• three legislative hearings were held, and five bills and two resolutions on LBAM were introduced; and
  
  
• in the face of new trade restrictions from Canada and Mexico, the CDFA renewed efforts to rally agricultural interests in support of their eradication efforts—despite having no data publicly available to show the three rounds of spraying in 2007 had any effect on the moth.

All the way along, I have advocated that the department address public concerns in an open process based on sound science.  This controversy has developed to the current level due to the inability of the CDFA to successfully do that and will continue until that happens. 

For example, over six hundred Monterey Bay area residents raised personal health concerns after last fall’s spraying.  The CDFA’s hotline to collect information about those incidents proved to be counterproductive and residents did not trust the department was assessing their complaints.  

Now six legislators have introduced bills or resolutions.  My AB 2763, the Invasive Pest Planning Act of 2008, is a good government measure based on what we have learned in this crisis.  This bill would require that the CDFA plan for invasive animals, plants and insects that have a reasonable likelihood of entering California for which an eradication program might be appropriate.  Plans would cover pesticide use and potential health impacts, and would have to be considered in public before such an emergency exists–trying to prevent future situations like what we’ve experienced with LBAM. 

I have also introduced ACR 117 and written to state agencies asking them to respond to unaddressed concerns about the previous spraying and publish analyses of likely health impacts of CDFA’s 2008 plans.  That resolution states that it is the responsibility of our government to demonstrate its LBAM actions are necessary and do not compromise human or environmental health.  It isn’t the responsibility of the people to demonstrate the reverse.

Other bills that have been introduced:

• AB 2760, Assemblymember Leno (D-San Francisco), requires an Environmental Impact Report be completed before applying pesticide in an urban area for the eradication of LBAM.
  
  
• AB 2764, Assemblymember Hancock (D-Berkeley), prohibits the CDFA from approving the application of a pesticide in an urban area, unless the governor has proclaimed a state of emergency.
  
  
• AB 2765, Assemblymember Huffman (D-San Rafael), sets new limits on the emergency powers of the CDFA, including barring emergency spraying in an urban area unless there is full disclosure of all elements in any pesticide product. 
  
  
• AB 2892, Assemblymember Swanson (D-Oakland), requires the CDFA to obtain the consent of voters of urban cities and counties affected by aerial applications of pesticide. 
  
  
• SCR 87, Senator Migden (D-San Francisco), calls for a moratorium on LBAM-related spraying until it can be demonstrated the pheromone compound intended for use is both safe to humans and effective at eradicating LBAM.

Each bill will have to go through legislative process—with varying levels of success.  However, none of them could take effect until January 2009, well after the next round of scheduled spraying in June 2008. 

While the CDFA is rallying agricultural interests to support the spraying, there can be no real progress towards resolving the LBAM situation until the unanswered health, efficacy and international trade questions are addressed.  My Assembly Website, at www.assembly.ca.gov/laird, contains detailed LBAM information and is updated regularly.