I've attended town hall and community gatherings, as well as Environmental Impact Report (EIR) meetings on the topic of the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM). The information collated here comes from a number of cited sources, all of which can be further pursued by the included links and references.
The following are 10 arguments in opposition to the LBAM aerial spraying proposed for the San Francisco Bay Area in August 2008. (You can find the California Department of Agriculture's pro-aerial-spraying positions posted at the CDFA official website.)
For more information on this issue, see LBAM Spray Resources.
1. The Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) is Not an Emergency - No Crop Damage
At a May 2008 town hall meeting in San Francisco, James Carey (entomologist and invasive species expert at UC Davis) said that the LBAM has not caused any quantifiable damage to California agriculture by the CDFA's own admission (California Department of Agriculture).
Judges in both Santa Cruz and Monterey agreed that the situation was not an emergency and ruled that Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura violated state law by spraying untested pesticides in those counties. Both judges ordered the spraying in Santa Cruz and Monterey stopped until an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) can be completed.
2. The Light Brown Apple Moth Has Likely Been in California For Years
In March 2008, James Carey testified before the California Assembly Agriculture Committee, explaining that the range of the Light Brown Apple Moth suggests the moth has been in the state for many years. Meaning, it is not a new, invasive species as the CDFA suggests.
At the San Francisco town hall meeting, Jeff Rosendale (involved in Bay Area and Central Coast horticulture and plant production) described the Light Brown Apple Moth as a leaf-rolling moth -- one of many varieties of leaf-rolling moths in California, all of which have natural predators.
Leaf-rolling moths do not feed internally on fruit, nor do they defoliate crops or native plants. According to Stop the Spray, damage from leaf-rolling moths is superficial at most.
3. The Light Brown Apple Moth Can Be Safely Managed
Although the moth has not caused any crop damage in California, there are safe ways of managing the situation if it becomes necessary.
A report co-authored by Jeff Rosendale and Dr. Daniel Harder (Director of UCSC Arboretum), claims LBAM is successfully managed in New Zealand with safe IPM (Integrated Pest Management). The moth is 80 to 90 percent controlled by natural predators, and is considered a "minor pest."
Nan Wishner of Stop the Spray (East Bay) and Albany IPM Task Force says IPM measures are not being followed here. The first principle of IPM is to determine whether action is needed at all, especially in a case where no damage has occurred. Aerial spraying should always be a last resort, if used at all.
4. Aerial Spraying is a Chemical Experiment - Without Our Consent
If you consider that this aerial spraying -- by many accounts -- is not even necessary, the chemical mix and application of the LBAM spray (untested for this usage) seems all the more insidious. It amounts to a health and environmental experiment -- for a program that a number of UC entomologists don't believe will even work.
For more information on how the health of Monterey and Santa Cruz residents was affected, watch this video from Eon -- where resident Mike Lynberg discusses pervasive issues after the aerial spraying.
In another video, Roy Upton talks about the dead cormorants he found after the aerial spraying -- and how he became involved in the environmental and health aspects of the spray.
5. It's Not Simply a Pheromone - It's a Chemical Mix
The LBAM spray is not simply a pheromone. The product used in the Bay Area will be similar to the one used in Monterey and Santa Cruz: Checkmate.
On a radio show with Angie Coiro -- Agriculture Secretary Kawamura admitted that the list of ingredients was not disclosed until the public opposition arose, after the spray.
So-called "inert" ingredients are proprietary information guarded by pesticide companies. But "inert" does not mean "harmless." It means there are additional chemicals in the product that are not actively targeting the pest. That does not mean they are harmless to humans and animals.
Some ingredients in Checkmate are known carcinogens and mutagens. Read more at LBAMspray.com and in this report by Ann M. Haiden, D.O.
6. The Delivery System: A Tiny Plastic Microcapsule That Can Be Inhaled
The pesticide will be delivered in plastic microcapsules which time-release the product over the span of 30 days. In April of 2008, Dennis Knepp, Ph.D and Jeff Haferman Ph.D reported that they believed the concentration of these tiny particles in the air was responsible for the negative health reports in Santa Cruz and Monterey after the aerial sprayings.
The term PM10 is used to describe these microcapsules -- PM10 meaning particles with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less. LBAMspray.com has posted an overview of how PM10 constitutes a health and respiratory hazard.
7. Long-Term Health, Environmental & Wildlife Effects Are Unknown
The long-term effects of the LBAM are not known. There's a moratorium on spraying until August 17 (while some testing is done) but the tests are only for acute toxicity, not chronic effects.
There were more than 640 reports of illness after the Monterey and Santa Cruz LBAM sprayings. Some were severe (e.g. an eleven-month-old who nearly died from respiratory problems). There were also reports of pets becoming ill or dying. Hundreds of dead sea birds washed up on the coast.
State officials deny a connection between the spraying and these effects. But as Mike Lynberg said at the San Francisco town hall, none of the health reports was properly investigated by the CDFA. They did not interview patients or doctors. They didn't do field work.
8. Years of Aerial Spraying May Damage Local Economy
Airplanes will fly over San Francisco, and parts of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo and Marin County three nights out of the month. Planes will fly low, at 500 feet. The spraying will occur nine months out of the year. And the program will go on indefinitely, estimated by the CDFA to last three to four years.
Because the product is designed to release over time, it is not viable to simply move away for the duration of the spray. And of course, moving away is not an option for Bay Area wildlife.
The Bay Area could see an economic impact in areas such as tourism, organic farming, and real estate. Home owners in spray zones must disclose that fact. The California Alliance to Stop the Spray (CASS) released an Economic Report in May 2008.
9. Effects on Other Moths, Butterflies and Bees are Unknown
At the San Francisco town hall (May 2008), James Carey discussed how pheromones tend to be persistent -- they stay in the system. A program like this is experimental at best in terms of how it might affect non-target species -- other moths, butterflies, bees. Bees are already experiencing significant stress, and there is no research to suggest how this vast aerial application might further affect our honeybee populations.
At the February town hall meeting Berkeley, Nan Wishner (Albany IPM Task Force) made the point that global warming and global trade will invariably bring new pests. We have to fundamentally change our approach to least toxic control -- to protect ourselves and our ecosystem.
10. Opposition to the Aerial Spraying is Not an Isolated Group of "Activists"
You'll hear the opposition marginalized -- with terms like "activists." That tends to compartmentalize the issue in a way that does not reflect the true demographic of the opposition.
The most recent town hall in San Francisco was attended by more than 200 concerned citizens.
Local governments and cities around the Bay Area have passed "no spray" resolutions.
A long list of groups like the Marin Association of Realtors, the East Bay Municipal District, and Marin Organics oppose the spray.
The number of local governments, scientists and organizations in opposition to the spray is growing. You can see a complete list of these groups at Stop the Spray website:
Local Governments and Groups Opposed to the LBAM Spray Program