The aerial spraying of synthetic pheromones to disrupt the mating habits of the male light brown apple moth (LBAM) continues to generate appropriate public outcry and questi oning. Rather than presenting the issue for public debate in advance, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) relied upon the declaration of an emergency to pursue aerial applications along the Central Coast.

As a long-time advocate for health and safety protections for rural residents exposed to pesticide application and drift, I am concerned about the proclamations of a public emergency by the CDFA. I also am concerned about the failure of that agency to conduct a systematic and thorough review of the stated problem: a crop-threatening regional infestation of the LBAM. In addition, a full exploration of alternative solutions to control the apple moth received inadequate consideration.

For too many years, rural residents and workers have been the victims of chemicals placed on the market before submission of required health-impact data as a result of emergency and economic exemptions. Only after the identification of health and environmental impacts in the field were certain chemicals withdrawn from the market. (DDT, Metatsystox-R and TOK are a few examples.)

Unfortunately, governmental agencies charged with protecting public health have established a track record of putting big industries’ declarations of economic necessity ahead of public safety and environmental preservation. In the current debate, the burden rests squarely on the CDFA to foster a transparent process.

THE BURDEN RESTS SQUARELY ON THE CDFA.

Residents of Monterey County already were exposed to a series of aerial applications conducted in late 2007. The CDFA’s early refusal to disclose information on the total combination of compounds sprayed led to a collapse of public confidence, and represents an assault on the public’s right to know. This spring and summer, the CDFA plans to continue with the aerial application. These actions require the declaration of another type of emergency – an emergency based on the short-circuiting of public process and a failure to fully explore safer alternatives, arguably in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Indeed, there is disagreement among scientists. The CDFA identifies the synthetic pheromones being used, CheckMate LBAM-F and CheckMate OLR-F, as “highly specific” in their targeting of the LBAM. According to experts with the California Cooperative Extension Program, these pheromones are “not as specific as people thought” (as W.K. Frankie Lam told the Weekly), and may be targeting other families of native pests.

There are a number of more specific trapping and eradication methods cited by agronomists, entomologists and opponents of aerial spraying. Those alternatives include ground pheromone treatments that use twist ties affixed to host plants, trees and fences; more localized application of insecticides; and the release of Trichogramma wasps that can lay larvae that eat the LBAM larvae inside the moth eggs. Although I favor the use of integrated pest management methods proven to be successful by the region’s organic farming community, I believe any of these suggested alternatives are superior to aerial spraying.

Assemblyman John Laird has engaged in a protracted public discourse with the director of CDFA, A.G. Kawamura, seeking further information on risks posed by LBAMs, as well as information on the inert ingredients and spreading agents used with the pheromone compounds.

But the CDFA’s response continues to be deficient; the recent and planned “public scoping” meetings fall short of engaging key decision-makers in the firing line of legitimate public inquiry. Recently, Kawamura told Berkeley City Council that he could not offer an unequivocal reassurance that there would be no adverse health impacts from the spraying.

The CDFA certainly would gain more credibility if it were to allocate the $400,000 committed to its new public relations campaign to the hiring of public-health professionals.

While there exists a spectrum of opinion regarding the degree of risk posed by the LBAM presence and eradication methods, there can be no doubt that the public policy process has been flawed from the outset, and that the public has every reason to question the conclusions and reassurances advanced by the CDFA.

As pointed out by one opponent of the spraying, “We are still importing apples from New Zealand [where LBAM infestation has been identified]… and no one has yet demonstrated with any scientific integrity the damage caused or projected to be caused by the LBAM to our local agriculture.”

BILL MONNING IS AN ATTORNEY AND CANDIDATE IN THE 27TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT. HE HAS CO-AUTHORED LEGAL TEXTS ON THE LITIGATION OF TOXIC TORT CASES AND REPRESENTED RURAL RESIDENTS VICTIMIZED BY TOXIC PESTICIDE PRODUCTS. HE IS A PROFESSOR AT THE MONTEREY INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES AND THE MONTEREY COLLEGE OF LAW.