farmers watching moth controversy closely -The
Fresno Bee Apr 26, '08
"I have constituents
who are out of their minds in fear, mothers telling me they will have to leave
the area," Leno said. "We should not live in fear of our government."
Nelsen, president of California Citrus Mutual in Exeter, said that if the government's
efforts "are hampered by activists, local government or sympathetic judges, we
could find ourselves in the situation faced by Florida."
"We have the
responsibility, as does the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to protect the agriculture
industry and the environment," Steve Lyle said.
Barry Bedwell, who heads
the Fresno-based California Grape and Tree Fruit League, said Leno's bill could
result in "a delay or stop to the process when we have an emergency situation.
A California Environmental Quality Act review can take months, if not years."
"A trade issue is a real impact. It's as destructive as a pest chewing on a vine,"
Barry Bedwell said.
Herald on 2008_01_27
QUOTES: Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura quotes:
"Santa Cruz is, as predicted, making us rethink our overall eradication outreach
component. It's been a learning process — isn't it always?" 10.11.07 email to
colleague in Santa Cruz "We still have to believe this is one of the best opportunities
we will have to expand the support for the fight on invasives. That has to be
the tone of our outreach — not just a fight against activists with a misdirected
cause!" 10.5.07 to press aide Nancy Lungren "This has a predictable direction
to it." 9.2.07 to press aide Steve Lyle, on an email describing resident concerns
over possible spraying effects on monarch butterfly migration.
CDFA press aide Nancy Lungren quotes:
"Yes, if we can get the
main msg out and they hear, I'll be amazed!" 10.5.07 to Sec. A.G. Kawamura
"The Laird letter will run next week, but Tuesday's meeting, as I said, will
not be easy. Still much animosity to over come." 10.5.07 to Sec. A.G. Kawamura
"Laird's ppl tell me from emails and calls, it's more than fringe." 10.5.07
to Sec. A.G. Kawamura
Apple moth timeline:
Aug. 14 2007: State officials announce they will
spray pheromone mix over Monterey County in early September
Aug. 20: First
public outreach meeting held in Seaside; local media report resident complaints
Aug. 21: Second public meeting draws hundreds in Monterey, many protesting
Sept. 9: First round of spraying begins on Peninsula, after which
hundreds report health complaints October: Proposals from public relations companies
sought to help with outreach.
Lynberg's Health Report
“Midway through the aerial sprayings, the CDFA
stated that the only way complaints of illness would be taken seriously is if
they were validated by a doctor. However, I have patients who told me that other
doctors refused to file a report on their reactions, even though it is required
by law." – Randy Baker, MD, a family physician practicing environmental medicine
“While California’s agriculture business is vitally
important, no one, including the Governor, I think, wants to sacrifice the health
of children and other vulnerable citizens for produce. That’s why the spraying
needs to stop so we can have a thorough public process including an Environmental
Impact Report.” – Tony Madrigal, Santa Cruz City Council
establishing the safety of the spraying simply is not there. In effect, this has
been an experiment on a grand scale. The Nuremberg Code, which is adhered to by
the National Institutes of Health, prohibits medical experimentation on human
subjects without their informed consent. I believe the same code of ethics should
be adhered to in this situation.” – Dr. Doug Hulstedt, pediatrician, Monterey
“The number of people who have reported adverse reactions is alarming, and I believe
further spraying must be halted until we can be certain it is safe.” – Emily Reilly,
Santa Cruz City Council member
“Protecting those who are most vulnerable
is a hallmark of our society, and while the aerial spraying might not adversely
impact everyone, there is reason to believe it is harming some people, including
those with chemical sensitivities, impaired immune systems, and asthma and other
respiratory ailments. The rights of these citizens need to be protected.” – Jeff
Haferman, Monterey City Council member
“Article One of the California
Constitution clearly states that all people have a right to pursue and obtain
safety, and the aerial spraying of synthetic pheromones and other chemicals on
neighborhoods, playgrounds and schools could be in violation of this right,” said
Mike Lynberg of Concerned Citizens Against Aerial Spraying.
“We, as elected
officials, have a responsibility in matters of public safety to make sure that
decision-making process is transparent to the citizenry. Thus far, the state has
not lived up this standard.” -- Ryan Coonerty, Santa Cruz Mayor
effective non-spraying alternatives exist. Aerial spraying has been called the
‘least effective’ way to control the light brown apple moth because at least 99
percent of the spray has no effect on the widely dispersed moths at all. A more
effective and less costly solution is targeted, pheromone-scented sticky traps2,
which the state has used to trap essentially all the 9,000 moths they’ve caught
in California so far.” – David Dilworth, Executive Director, Helping Our Peninsula’s
“Given the number and seriousness of the health complaints,
and the heavy presence of the Checkmate LBAM F capsules in the river and along
Cowell Beach after the spraying, I think there is reason to believe that a line
has been crossed and that the aerial spraying is not environmentally responsible,
possibly violating the authority under which it was initiated. – Ed Porter, Member
of the Santa Cruz City Council
“CDFA has undertaken aerial spraying under
the pretext of an emergency. Clearly there is no emergency in the legal sense.
An emergency is a sudden and unexpected occurrence threatening life and property.
There is no way in law that the LBAM situation can be considered an emergency.”
“Unfortunately, many people did not know how to register complaints
of adverse reactions, and primary care health providers were not adequately instructed
how to recognize and report possible pesticide-related illnesses among their patients.
Also, citizens and health practitioners were assured by the CDFA that the spraying
would not make anyone sick, so it's possible that many attributed their adverse
reaction to other causes. Ibid
“Midway through the aerial sprayings, the
CDFA stated that the only way complaints of illness would be taken seriously is
if they were validated by a doctor. However, I have patients who told me that
other doctors refused to file a report on their reactions, even though it is required
by law." – Randy Baker, MD, a family physician who practices environmental medicine
in Soquel “Unfortunately, there is very little in the way of objective testing
doctors can do to tell if a complaint actually is related to chemical exposures.
And many people could not afford the time or expense of going to a doctor, or
could not get a timely appointment. Should their complaints be ignored?” Ibid
about people who could not afford the time or expense of going to a doctor, or
who couldn’t get an appointment?” asks Mike Lynberg. “Are their complaints not
worth taking seriously?”CASS
"It seems like the state learned nothing from the first rounds
of spraying, which led to more than 600 illness complaints by citizens in Santa
Cruz and Monterey Counties, many of them severe," said Bonnie Keet of California
Alliance to Stop the Spray.
Keet continued, "Under a declared emergency,
the CDFA rushed into spraying hundreds of highly populated neighborhoods last
fall with pesticides that had never been tested on humans, and now they plan to
continue doing so for many years to come. How is this consistent with Article
One of the California Constitution, which says that citizens have a right to safety?"
Cruz City Council Member Tony Madrigal states, "Clearly this is a blatant attempt
from the CDFA to make the public forget their families and children are constantly
being exposed to untested chemicals every day, every minute, every hour. Just
because the planes aren't spraying us overhead doesn't mean the chemicals aren't
still affecting our communities."
I would not allow it. Permethrin is not safe and is particularly dangerous for
cats. I will write a column about it this afternoon and send it to the SF Chronicle"
From: Richard Fagerlund Date: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:33:35 AM US/Pacific To: Elizabeth
Quinn Subject: Re: Permethrins