24
Oct
Aerial Spraying for the Brown Apple Moth to Resume
(Beyond Pesticides, October 24, 2007) The aerial spraying for eradication of the brown apple moth, which has been disputed by environmentalist and concerned residents, is set to resume this week. This is a result of the lifting of the temporary restraining order against the use of the pesticide, in light of the order given by Governor Schwarzenegger that called on the California Department of Food and Agriculture to release the names of the chemical components of the pesticide and then restart spraying. On Friday a Monterey judge determined that the pesticide, CheckMate LBAM-F, did not contain toxic chemicals and lifted the ban instituted October 10. The restraining order was first granted more than 100 residents complained of health problems after the spraying first took place last month over the Monterey peninsula. Environmental groups sued the state claiming that a health safety assessment was never conducted before spraying. That suit is still pending. The lingering concerns prompted the governor to order the state to release the ingredients on Saturday, despite efforts by the manufacturer to keep the contents secret.
California Secretary of Food and Agriculture, A.G. Kawamura, said in a statement on Saturday that the governor supports the public’s right to know every ingredient of the pesticide, CheckMate LBAM-F, “to the maximum extent possible under U.S. trademark law” and that he is confident that full disclosure will confirm that the spray is nontoxic to humans, plants, animals and insects.
However, the inert chemicals in CheckMate LBAM-F have now come under scrutiny by local residents. These inerts ingredients causing concern are: butylated hydroxytoluene, tricaprylyl methyl ammonium chloride, polyvinyl alcohol, and sodium phosphate. These inerts are listed by the US EPA as List 3 - Inerts of unknown toxicity, and List 4B - Other ingredients for which EPA has sufficient information to reasonably conclude that the current use pattern in pesticide products will not adversely affect public health or the environment, respectively.
Suzanne Dowling, a concerned resident, said, “There are health hazards associated with each and every one of the four inert ingredients of the product to be dumped on us.” Concern, not just with the ingredients but also with their concentrations, has prompted groups such as HOPE (Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment) to ask Governor Schwarzenegger to order the state to also release the concentrations of the ingredients found in CheckMate LBAM-F. HOPE has said that it would also appeal the lifting of the ban.
Inert ingredients include many that the EPA has officially determined, under other statutory programs, to be hazardous or toxic. Numerous studies indicate that inert ingredients may enhance the toxicity of pesticide formulations to the nervous system, the cardiovascular system, mitochondria, genetic material and hormone systems (For a discussion, see “Unidentified Inert Ingredients in Pesticides: Implications for Human and Environmental Health”). Under current labeling regulation, inert ingredients do not have to be disclosed.
The pesticide CheckMate LBAM-F works as a pheromone that disrupts the mating cycle of the moth. Least toxic alternatives for pest control include the use of pheromones. However, the uncertainty about inert ingredients included in many pesticide formulations remains a serious concern. Beyond Pesticides advocates for full disclosure of inert ingredients. By ending the secrecy about inert ingredients in pesticides, people will be able to make better decisions about how they manage pests in their homes and their communities.
CheckMate LBAM-F Ingredients: (E)-11-Tetradecen-1-yl acetate, (E,E)–9,11-Tetradecadien-1-yl-acetate, cross linked polyurea polymer, butylated hydroxytoluene, polyvinyl alcohol, tricaprylyl methyl ammonium chloride and sodium phosphate, ammonium phosphate, 1,2-benzisothiozoli-3-one, 2-hydroxyl-4-n-octyloxybenzophenone.
Sources: Houston Chronicle, Santa Cruz Sentinel
This seems like a big problem. If the chemicals that make up the oesticide in their own are known to be dangerous, then the mixture should also be dangerous. This issue shouldn;t be determined by the courts, but by people with knowledge and authority of this issue. I am glad the governer is taking an active role in his citizens lives and is protecting them. The chemicals in pesticides should be available for everyone to know. I hope the people continue their fight and bring this issue to bigger light.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:19 amToo Bad for us. A judge in Santa Cruz County decided today that (despite widespread protest), we will be subjected to ariel sprayings every month for the next year. Since they don’t know what the chemicals do, they reasoned that they can spray until adverse health effects will be an issue. This country sure isn’t what it used to be.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:23 pmThank you for your article on the spraying of our children and our families with untested Checkmate pesticides. I especially appreciate the explanation of the harm which can be caused by the wrongly named “inerts” in pesticides.
Please let me make a few corrections.
1. The article states: “Environmental groups sued the state claiming that a health safety assessment …”
Because it takes a lot of time, expertise, money and effort to file a suit I believe it is important to note that only one group filed suit, the environment and democracy protection group called Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment (HOPE). I am HOPE’s Executive Director.
A week after your article the County of Santa Cruz filed an almost identical suit to HOPE’s. No one else has filed a suit on this issue.
2. The article also states: “A Monterey judge determined that the pesticide, CheckMate LBAM-F, did not contain toxic chemicals…”
The judge made absolutely no determination about whether CheckMate has any toxic chemicals. All he found was that HOPE could not prove to a CERTAINTY that either of the two Checkmate pesticides would cause irreversible harm or had caused the harm to the 117 people reporting symptoms right after the September spraying of our cities.
Just because we couldn’t prove it, does not mean there is no potentially significant harm to humans or our environment.
HOPE was handicapped because the ingredient list was kept a secret until AFTER the judge declined to delay the spraying until our suit can be heard. we are working overtime to get the suit in front of the Court before the end of the year.
3. The article also states: “HOPE has said that it would also appeal the lifting of the ban.”
By “ban” in the context of your article I believe you mean the Temporary Restraining Order HOPE obtained. HOPE has not said that we would appeal that ruling. However, now that we have a bigger list of the pesticides’ ingredients, we may revisit that.
-David Dilworth, Executive Director
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:17 pm831 624-6500
http://www.1hope.org/
Box 1495
Carmel, California, USA
I am just one of many concerned individuals that have come together in a true grassroots effort in Santa Cruz and Monterey County. We were shocked into action by the failed attempts by both City and County of Santa Cruz to halt the latest aerial spraying campaign. Another law suit, jointly filed in federal court by 4 residents, two SC City Council Members and the Vice-Mayor of Monterey, is still pending.
The ANALYSIS OF TOXICOLOGY STUDIES was compiled Professor Richard B. Philp, Pharmacologist and Toxicologist at the
University of Western Ontario, for presentation in the federal court case. It provides damning evidence that long-term aerial application of this synthetic pheromone is not safe for the health of humans and the environment.
Read on:
http://forum.stopthespray.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=43&p=119#p119
Unfortunately the issue has largely been portrayed in simplistic polarized images. Health complaints have been denied as a case of mass hysteria! We desperately need the help of the scientific community to turn the debate into a productive and fair process!
November 18th, 2007 at 2:09 amIt is now 11/18/07. I live in Santa Cruz Ca and we were coated by this spray.. Our eyes still burn, nose running with an acid drop, tight chest and bad taste in our mouths.. I tried to rake the leafs in our front yard yesterday and had to stop.. Bad taste and my eyes lite up hurting.. This is horrible. I’ve talked with 42 people who have been sprayed.. 41 are very upset about it and one didn’t give a darn. I think that he was drunk.. If we’re sprayed one more time we’re moving away… but where? .. I see that a few houses still have their tape and plastic covering up windows and doors… We’re normal people here but this time it’s going to be taken to the streets by us.. We’ll go down fighting on this one..
November 18th, 2007 at 12:54 pm