Laird Statement on LBAM Spraying, Court Decision & Public Health

SANTA CRUZ – Assemblymember John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) today issued the following statement regarding the latest round of LBAM spraying, set for November 4-9 in northern Monterey County and Santa Cruz County:

“The Santa Cruz County Superior Court’s denial of the request for a temporary restraining order against the CDFA should not be interpreted as an endorsement by the court of the aerial spraying plans. 

Following the ruling, my concerns about the CDFA’s aerial spraying program and request for delay are exactly the same as they were before the ruling, especially with regard to environmental review and public health.  

I am also concerned about the lack of adequate notice provided to residents in the population center of the Santa Cruz area spray zone.

It is unfortunate the CDFA has chosen to move forward with aerial spraying, despite legitimate and serious concerns raised by me, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, the City of Santa Cruz and the hundreds of residents who have contacted my office. 

With spraying set to begin tomorrow, it is critically important for those who believe they have suffered health effects from the spraying to contact their health provider directly or visit a local health clinic.  Doing so is the only way to ensure incidents are tracked and investigated.

Copies of relevant public health documents:

 S.C. County Public Health Dept. 11/2/07 Press Release: http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a27/071102PressReleaseLBAM.doc

S.C. County Public Health Dept. 11/2/07 Health Advisory:

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a27/10.07FinalPublicHealtAdvisoryLBAM1.doc

Health Incident Reporting Form, to be filed by doctors:

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a27/pir_99.pdf

Since August 27th, I have raised dozens of key questions about the spray plans.  The questions I have raised (and the CDFA’s responses to them) have become a useful element in the ongoing community dialogue in both Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties.  Certain questions and requests have been responded to, such as the establishment of a phone hotline and an email notification system.  Likewise, at my request, there has been a more open public process than what was originally planned by CDFA. 

However, with the first round of Monterey Peninsula area spraying completed, and north Monterey County and Santa Cruz County spraying set to begin this weekend, I am distressed by the fact that many of my questions have not been answered adequately and new questions continue to arise.

With approximately 100,000 people residing in the spray zones for the round set to begin tomorrow, many environmental, scientific and efficacy questions have not been adequately answered.  That is in part because so many of the studies and reports that are essential to getting answers will not be available until after the first rounds of spraying have already happened (see chart below).  While it is troubling that so many study and report milestones have yet to be met, I’m more troubled by the lack of studies and follow through related to public health.

Of greatest concern to me is the notion that speculative economic impacts may be outweighing the need to protect human health.  In Monterey County there are reports of more than 200 health complaints associated with aerial spraying.  Yet, to date there is no evidence that reports have been analyzed, and a promised ‘white paper’ on the toxicological data on the pheromone product and the health complaints taken as a whole has not been released.  In fact, in his October 26th letter to me, CDFA Secretary Kawamura indicated there are no plans to either study long term effects of the spraying or conduct an epidemiological analysis of the complaints CDFA has received.

In light of the unresolved health complaints and unanswered scientific questions, the “precautionary principle” should serve as a guide. It has been described as a political and moral principle that says if an action or policy could harm the public or the environment, the burden of proof falls on the proponent of the action—rather than on the public.

It was determined in Superior Court that the County of Santa Cruz failed to meet the burden of proof required to obtain a temporary restraining order against the state.  However, in the court of public opinion, the burden of proof ought to be on CDFA to prove LBAM-F and OLR-F are safe prior to spraying it on residential populations monthly for an open-ended period of time.”

###