Valley 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."

Joel 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Quotes from the 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 spray plans
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.
=============================================================
===================================================================

Quotes from Mike 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 in Soquel.



“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

“The science 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

“Far more 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 Environment (HOPE)

“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.” Ibid

“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

“What 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 Press Release
"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?"

Santa 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."


=============================================================
=============================================================

"Yes, 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