• Free subscription via e-mail!

  • Support the site!

  • Join me on Facebook!

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • October 2019
    S M T W T F S
    « Nov    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  
  • Top Posts

  • RSS Farm Wars

  • RSS SMCC

  • RSS The PPJ

  • Meta

Bay Area Spraying Stopped, Phony Program Revealed!

The LBAM “infestation” and resultant “emergency situation” is a manufactured “threat” so that the CDFA and pesticide maker can get a whole lotta MONEY.
 
There is NO LBAM THREAT!

From The Monterey County Herald

1. The LBAM is not a threat to agricultural products because it has no history of doing extensive crop damage.

2. The only threat to growers is a trade quarantine that exists only because the U.S. Department of Agriculture made poor decisions decades ago and could correct the problem with a policy change.

3. Fear has been falsely planted by Kawamura, causing the Monterey County Farm Bureau and state Chamber of Commerce to act hastily on misinformation. Not only is eradication unnecessary, but some scientists say it is impossible.

Won’t the LBAM damage hundreds of crops? Evidence and some scientists say “No.”

In Santa Cruz County, which has more LBAMs than the rest of the state, zero crop damage has been found.

In New Zealand, the LBAM has become a minor pest. A report by Dr. Daniel Harder, adjunct professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of California-Santa Cruz, and Dr. Jim Walker, technical research scientist for Hort Research in New Zealand, said, “Hawkes Bay horticultural researchers report that … if LBAM were controlled,

… the maximum damage caused by LBAM would be 1 percent or less of crops.”Isn’t the quarantine real and valid? It may be real, but not valid.

The USDA protected U.S. growers by incorrectly classifying the LBAM when it was in Australia and New Zealand. Now Canada and Mexico follow the USDA zero-risk trade policy, refusing to buy some U.S. products. The advice of UC-Davis entomology professor James Carey to the California Assembly’s Committee on Agriculture was to “consider more realistic trade policy, consider non-zero risk.”

Fear, in the form of gross exaggeration of the LBAM problem, caused growers to believe the LBAM must be eradicated. Carey is the author of three books on insect demography. In his testimony to the Assembly Ag Committee on March 12, he said, “The population growth model presented by the (state agriculture department) would not be taken seriously by any editor of any entomology or ecology journal in the world.” By the state estimate, Carey said there would already be 50 moths per square inch in Berkeley, a total of two thousand trillion moths. Nevertheless, he said that eradication with or without spraying pheromones is impossible and that ground crews should be used to “control” the LBAM. This is a repeat of what happened in New Zealand, following widespread reaction against the conduct of the aerial spraying plan. We should learn from New Zealand’s experience.

Because the state threat is exaggerated, can be removed by a USDA policy change, and cannot succeed, Californians must demand that the state terminate any plans to spray.   

Evidently, current plans to spray have been stopped thanks to public resistance! Can we say, GOTCHA?

A reader just sent the following compilation, which details the amount of funds the CDFA can access if it “is able to establish and maintain an emergency status and resulting eradication effort for this moth.”    

 
 

 

LBAM Eradication Program – A Fraudulent Program.

 

1. The Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) is not a significant pest.

any more than thousands of other insects including 300 moths in California that are routinely monitored, but do not require any treatment, unless some balance goes out of control, generally caused by a pesticide induced kill-off of their predators.  European Union doesn’t even monitor LBAM.  They just live there like ants or crickets live here, and like over 80 other moths in LBAM’s exact family that already live here too.  After 30-50 years we see that LBAM is already well balanced in nature being eaten by the same predators as its cousins: birds, earwigs, spiders, beetles, etc.

 

2. The Light Brown Apple Moth has been in California about 30-50 years.

Looking at location spread and population density of the LBAM in California and scientifically comparing it to other moth movement and then adjusting for specific LBAM characteristics.

 

3. LBAM has done NO damage in California

CDFA confirms that, courts have ruled that, no one denies it.

 

4. LBAM in California requires NO treatment, certainly not eradication.

Based on #3 and #4 above, and so much supporting independent scientific information.

 

However:

5. If the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) is able to establish and maintain an emergency status and resulting eradication effort for this moth, the CDFA will be able to access approximately $500 million of emergency funding over the next five years, increasing its annual budget approximately 40%.  And with control of delivery and monitoring for such a program, they will almost certainly be able to substantiate continuing the program for at least another five years at about another $100 million per year.

 

6. It is impossible to eradicate the LBAM and there is no reason to.

Maybe, if all the people were moved out of the entire state of California and all remaining life in California was exterminated, that might do it, but even that is not certain as such an experiment has never been performed.  It would be similar to trying to eradicate ants or cockroaches.  It simply cannot be done.

 

7. The CDFA created a huge charade using science like a shell game.  There is probably not a single independent Entomologist in the state that thinks that LBAM can be eradicated from California.  CDFA handpicked a group of people on their Technical Working Group.  Most are willing to consider only the information that CDFA provides them and many have an interest in the program proceeding.  Independent Scientists with alternate known opinions were intentionally and aggressively left off.  The University of California recently offered a panel of experts to look at the eradication program of LBAM, but CDFA refused. 

 

8. There is no problem managing LBAM as 100’s of other pests.  New Zealand has shown how successful that is given they are forced to ship their goods to the U.S. with a zero tolerance for LBAM.  They successfully use modern safe integrated pest management techniques, so their methods control LBAM, while they are controlling many other more significant pests.

 

9. But CDFA needs an “Eradication program to obtain the emergency funding.

 

a. That included an aerial spray of pesticide over populated areas.

b. CDFA claimed aerial spray as a state of the art technology using pheromones, a less toxic alternative that the people had asked for.

c. True, toxic synthetic pheromone based pesticides are preferred in agriculture fields to the more toxic WWII derivatives, but not sprayed over people and intentionally left to stay time released into the air for 24 hours per day every day until they spray again.

d. Tens of thousands got sick of which over 643 managed to get an illness report filed when no one wanted to accept a report.  An 11-month-old boy, perfectly healthy son of an air force major, went into respiratory arrest following the spray.  He was airlifted out and his life was saved at a Stanford Hospital and he will likely be on steroid cocktails now for the rest of his life to keep his airway clear.

e. CDFA had reports done using only the information that the CDFA gave to the analysts and then the results were manipulated to tell the public that there were no links found between the spray and the illnesses, when in fact, the relationships between the spray and the illnesses could not be disproved by even their own manipulated reports.

f. CDFA claimed that the window for eradication was only months and that they could not wait to do an Environmental Impact Report.

g. CDFA claimed that aerial spray was the ONLY method of eradication.

h. Stewart Resnick had recently purchased the chemical company that won the contract for the aerial spray pesticide.  Resnick, a life long democrat, had given Governor Schwarzenegger $144,600 for his reelection campaign, and Resnick is connected to previous USDA reviews of this same moth that worked in Resnick’s favor.

 

10. After Santa Cruz and Monterey Superior Courts ruled CDFA had violated the emergency exemption of CEQA law, after 31 cities representing 2.4 million people passed resolutions against the spray, after 90 additional labor unions, school boards and other organizations passed resolutions against the spray, after almost all elected officials in the region took positions against the spray, after bills to stop the spray finally made it through committee, after the governor did a 180 degree turn and requested that they not use the spray, the CDFA created another lie and on June 19 announced: based on a sudden science breakthrough, they were now going to discontinue the aerial spray over populated areas and instead use a release of sterile moths.

 

a. Up to that moment, only aerial spray was possible to eradicate the LBAM per CDFA.

b. Sterile release of moths has never been successful eradicating a moth on this earth.

c. CDFA announced the sterile release testing will start in 2009 and be fully operational in 2011, but CDFA never mentioned that was inconsistent with their previous information that their window of opportunity to eradicate the moth was just months.

d. Sterile moth release has never eradicated any moth, and for LBAM, there are even further reasons it cannot possibly work:

– LBAM males guard over female pupae and mate when the female matures to a moth.

– LBAM females are promiscuous mating multiple times.

– LBAM females will live longer to successfully mate in order to produce their eggs.

– This method has never been tested.

– To rely on this method, therefore, is beyond absurd in science.

e. Releasing 20 million sterile moths per day could interfere with the natural balance involving predators and ultimately cause serious problems with unlimited numbers of other insects and pests.

 

11. CDFA needs a full-speed-ahead eradication program to keep the money flowing.

 

a. CDFA needs lots of activity and hoopla to substantiate just this years approximate $100 million that was already allocated to the LBAM emergency within the aerial program.

b. Previously, every item of CDFA’s fraudulent eradication program that was documented was refuted by qualified independent scientists.

c. Now, after the announcement of the sterile moth scientific breakthrough, and to avoid independent scientist review, CDFA is representing their eradication as a tool box of methods containing many tools that they alone know which one to use under which circumstance, and they are no longer detailing or documenting any of them.  This strategy successfully avoids scientific review, since scientists generally want to review a written document rather than verbal statements made by PR people to the media, etc.

d. At least one tool in their box, splatting, is more toxic than the aerial spray.  Combinations of permethrin and synthetic pheromone attached to 3,000 fixed objects in each square mile of populated areas, such that the chemicals permeate the same air children breath 24 hours per day, and maintained that way with repetitive applications.

e. This means that people will live between 0 and 45 feet away from a poison source 24 hours of their day, whether they are at home, work, school, the park, the playground, the pool, etc.  The air is permeated from these poison sources.  The poison source is cancer causing and a reproductive effector in that it affects the ability to reproduce, and it impacts newborn survivability and impacts pregnancy loss.  It can cause genetic damage as demonstrated in a lab study using human cells and women on farms using permethrin get asthma at higher rates than those not exposed to permethrin; and permethrin is more dangerous for children than adults.  These problems do not include the effects of toxic synthetic pheromone pesticide or the effects of the two in combination, the manner in which they will be deployed.

f. Mobile fogging is totally unknown to the public at this time, but there is no limit that the CDFA will put on themselves, nor is there any amount of dishonesty, intentional deception or harm to children and people generally that they will avoid to accomplish garnering the funds that an emergency eradication can provide them.

g. A proper management program of LBAM and other insects will simply not bring any additional funds to their normal annual budget.  The LBAM “Eradication” represents a potential increase in their annual funding of approximately 40%.

 

Recent videos relating to the newly packaged fraudulent LBAM eradication program:

 

 

1. State Drops Plan For Bay Area Moth Spraying  3 minutes, 1 second June 19, 2008 first video. 

2. Daniel Harder, Ph.D. Executive Director, The Arboretum, University of California at Santa Cruz.  LINK June 23, 2008.  14 minutes, 2 seconds 

 

California Spraying

People are up in arms about the Light Brown Apple Moth and the government’s spraying program designed to eradicate it. The question everyone is asking is, why are people being sprayed with an unregistered pesticide along with crops and fields?

Drina Brooke wants answers, so she sent a letter to the Department of Agriculture to see what they had to say. Here is their response:

Dear Ms. Brooke,

Thank you for writing about the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) project. I value hearing your thoughts on the project’s impact on California. California must work to combat the LBAM because of the complex threat it poses to our diverse range of agricultural and natural plant life. This invasive pest attacks more than 250 crops and 2,000 plants and threatens the native and endangered species that depend on them. If it becomes established statewide, the LBAM has the potential to cause billions of dollars of damage annually and cost the state numerous jobs. California has a duty to prevent the spread of the LBAM before it crosses borders into other states, agricultural regions and environments.

The LBAM is an invasive pest – not native to California – with few natural enemies here to reduce its expanding population. To combat this growing threat, we have proposed an integrated pest-management approach utilizing aerial and ground application of a moth pheromone. However, misinformation about the LBAM and our program continues to spread and cause unwarranted fear – despite constant and open dialogue for more than a year with citizens and local officials. There has been no shortage of grossly exaggerated and completely unsubstantiated claims – such as the pheromone product’s being untested and the treatments causing red tide (red tide is a naturally occurring marine algal bloom). Fortunately, the actual facts and due diligence have proven these claims false.

Pheromones are simply chemical signals that resemble a scent. Pheromone treatments have been used in the United States and around the world in agricultural and urban areas (including residential areas of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin) for more than a decade without incident. As recently as last year, more than 3 million acres in the United States were aerially treated with moth pheromones to disrupt the mating of the harmful gypsy moths.

For years, environmentalists have urged farmers to develop alternatives to conventional, toxic, “kill-on-contact” pesticides; pheromones are the alternative. These pheromones do not even harm the moths; they merely mimic a signal “scent” naturally emitted by the female moth, thereby distracting the males so they cannot locate a mate and reproduce.

Recently, the claim that residents became sick from past treatments has held the public’s attention and has been the subject of demonstrations. Public health officials with three state departments thoroughly reviewed health claims submitted during and after the aerial pheromone treatments last year in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties and could find no link between the claims and the treatments. As the Governor recently said in Monterey, the spraying is safe, and “there is nothing that says otherwise.”

I also hear a number of misleading and inaccurate references to describe the pheromone, including: hormone, carcinogen, mutagen, endocrine disruptor and other inaccurate descriptions. These unsupported claims overlook the fact that the federal Environmental Protection Agency, our state’s Department of Pesticide Regulation and numerous health agencies have thoroughly reviewed and unanimously approved these products and their classification as pheromones. In fact, the pheromone products we have used in this program are approved for treating organic crops; they are safe enough that the law states you don’t even have to wait or wash them off after a treatment before you eat the produce.

However, to thoroughly ensure everyone’s safety, the aerial spraying has been postponed while we complete what’s known as “six-pack” toxicology tests in addition to the normal extensive tests on the pheromone products. These tests thoroughly test toxicity for eye, inhalation, respiratory and other potential irritants. I am confident that these additional tests will reassure Californians that we are taking the safest, most health-conscious and most progressive our state of this very real threat to our agriculture, environment and economy. I implore everyone to rely on sound science and to shut the door on false information. For more information about the LBAM project, please visit our website at http://www.cdfa.ca.gov <http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/&gt; or call the LBAM hotline at 1-800-491-1899.

As a public official, I am sworn to protect the public, the environment and the ecosystems that make California such a uniquely productive and sustainable resource. I take that responsibility seriously, and I vow to pursue only the safest, most environmentally friendly means available.

Again, thank you for writing

Sincerely,

A.G. Kawamura, Secretary

California Department of Food and Agriculture

I am so relieved to hear that this agency is sworn to protect the public, and that all those people who got sick from the last spraying must have been mistaken about their illnesses. The following statement from the Agriculture department’s Secretary A.G. Kawamura is so reassuring. To bad it is false.

There has been no shortage of grossly exaggerated and completely unsubstantiated claims – such as the pheromone product’s being untested and the treatments causing red tide (red tide is a naturally occurring marine algal bloom). Fortunately, the actual facts and due diligence have proven these claims false.

I wrote an article about the spraying after I heard about it. You can read the entire article HERE. An excerpt from the article:

SUMMARY: EPA has received a quarantine exemption request from the United States Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA/APHIS) to use the pesticide (E,E)-9,11-tetradecadien-1-yl acetate (CAS No. 30562-09-5) to treat host plants to control the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM). The Applicant proposes the use of a new chemical which has not been registered by EPA. Due to the unique nature of this emergency situation, in which the time  to review the conditions of this situation was short, it was not possible to issue a solicitation for public comment, in accordance with 40 CFR 166.24, prior to the Agency’s decision to grant these exemptions.

DATES: EPA is waiving the public comment period, as allowed in 40 CFR 166.24, due to the short period of time available with which to review this situation and render a timely decision. However, comments may still be submitted and will be evaluated. (EPA, 2007) This exemption is dated July 2007. The spraying is to begin in August 2008, over a year after the exemption was granted. “Because of that exemption, the spraying program isn’t subject to state approval, according to representatives of the state Department of Pesticide Regulation” (Kay, 2008).

The EPA has not registered this pesticide, and because of the exemption granted by the EPA for the spraying program, it is not even subject to state approval. So just whom are we relying on to verify the product’s safety? Why California Governor Arnie’s buddy and campaign contributor Stewart Resnick, who just happens to own the company that manufactures the pesticide, and is the owner of the largest farming operation of tree crops in the world.

I feel so safe and protected. Thank you Governor Schwarzenegger and Secretary Kawamura, for entrusting the public’s safety to a pesticide manufacturer’s discretion.

Here is Drina’s response:

Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 8:26 AM

Subject: Public request concerning Light Brown Apple Moth aerial pesticide spraying

Dear AG Kawamura, Secretary, California Dept. of Food and Agriculture; and dear Mr. Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver (http://gov.ca.gov/interact)

Referring to your emailed form letter below in response to public concerns about the aerial pesticide-spraying program for the Light Brown Apple Moth, I have a public request. I am carbon copying a chain of concerned citizens, a military-trained expert on chemical warfare, several journalists, and four newspapers as I submit this request to you. All the above have my permission to circulate this letter and/or reprint and/or quote it, publicly.

You state, in your letter below, that a) the proposed untested pesticides to be sprayed over a 250-mile radius of urban areas, is so non-toxic as to be edible without washing the produce. You also state that b) “Public health officials with three state departments thoroughly reviewed health claims submitted during and after the aerial pheromone treatments last year in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties and could find no link between the claims” (of health injury, including more than 600 documented cases plus the near-death of one American child) “and the treatments. As the Governor recently said in Monterey, the spraying is safe, and “there is nothing that says otherwise.” “

If that is true, then I publicly request that you, Mr./Ms. Kawamura, Mr. Schwarzenegger, Maria Shriver, the individuals who are funding this aerial spraying project, and your family members (young and old) and your best friends, all stand unmasked and unprotected in the direct firing line of the pesticide spray, at the moment of occurrence. I request that you thereafter eat of the dripping wet produce, unwashed, directly on the spot, at the moment of spraying. Thereafter, I also request that you issue a public statement with unarguable proof that your own ensuing illnesses are not traceable to the spray which you ate and inhaled, and that “nothing says otherwise.”

To ensure your full participation in this spraying experiment as public proof of non-toxicity, I ask that this entire matter, with you personally and all those above-named individuals standing in direct line of the jet’s chemical trail, be televised unedited. Your own hospitalization and doctor’s visits, from start to finish, must be viewed on public TV as well, with the attending physician’s statement that “nothing says otherwise” that the chemical exposure had zero impact on your health state, and that of your loved ones. I also add to this request that you stand in the direct line of spraying for the Light Brown Apple Moth each and every time such spraying occurs, again aired unedited on public TV, with your own personal health exams thereafter aired unedited on TV as well. After all, if you are cooperating with the Patriot Act in turning our private health info over to the Feds without court warrant, and health information is at this point unconstitutionally considered public property, then you are not exempt either.

I also demand a public explanation why you prefer to spray an urban area of more than 200 radius miles instead of agricultural fields, selectively. It seems to me that if you were serious about exterminating an agricultural pest, that you would spray crop fields and not cities and counties of people themselves.

I hereby request that every reader please contact his or her local newspapers, and their own friends who in turn will also reiterate the same request as above, on a public level. I am requesting that my readers post this letter to the Internet, showing your own letter below which is an e-mailed response to the Light Brown Apple Moth aerial pesticide-spraying program. I also am linking a website which details the chemicals contained in the pheromone spray, their health impacts and their exponentially exacerbated effectiveness together, our legal rights and documented health cases, from an unbiased perspective instead of the perspective offered by your special moneyed interests.

I also wish to remind you that our liberty is being violated under the 14th amendment, where our freedom to protect our own health and wellbeing is concerned. That is no small violation under the law or under any moral code of ethic. To boot, we are even being required to pay for this violation to our health with our own tax dollars. That’s absurd. Only hospitalized psychiatric nutcases are willing to fund their own abuse, out of their own pocket.

If you are not willing to prove your claims that this spray really is non-toxic, putting your own bodies in harm’s way, then you should be jailed for the mere attempt to spray entire urban areas of living, breathing, thinking and feeling human beings.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves” —William Pitt the younger, Nov. 1783

The 14th amendment states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

With best wishes and a sante, to your good health!

—Drina Brooke, concerned citizen, Novato CA

You go girl! I would like to witness these people whom assure us that they have our best interests at heart take a nice big bite or two, or three, out of a freshly sprayed piece of fruit. After all, we can trust the pesticide manufacturers to make sure their products are safe, can’t we? We can’t let a few mistakes such as past claims by the manufacturers of DDT and Agent Orange that these dangerous chemicals were perfectly safe dissuade us from trusting them. Therefore, I am looking forward to viewing our fearless leaders stand in the path of the spray and show us just how safe it is, but I’ve got a feeling these defenders of public health and safety won’t be around for the show.

Barb

 

 

Bay Area Population to be Sprayed with Unregistered Pesticide

The people who live in the Bay area of California are about to be sprayed with a new pesticide not registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a pre-emptive strive against a non-existent threat.

 “In August, the California Department of Food and Agriculture plans to spray pesticides in five Bay Area counties” (CBS 5, 2008) in response to a perceived threat from the Light Brown Apple Moth. One of the chemicals being used is Checkmate, manufactured by Suterra, LLC, which is owned by Stewart Resnick, one of the richest men in California, and owner of the largest farming operation of tree crops in the world. Mr. Resnick is also included in California Governor Schwarzenegger’s top 100 donors. (Arnold Watch, 2008) 

Mr. Resnick has developed and owns a number of successful companies including Paramount Agribusiness, the largest farming operation of tree crops in the world, which includes Paramount Citrus, Paramount Farming and Paramount Farms, growers, processors and marketers of citrus, almonds and pistachios; POM Wonderful, grower of pomegranates and maker of the all-natural POM Wonderful pomegranate juice; Teleflora, the largest floral wire service in the world; FIJI Water, the second largest imported bottled water in the United States and the newest member of the Roll family of companies; The Franklin Mint, a leader in high-quality collectibles; and Suterra, the largest biorational pest control company in the United States. (Political Friendster, 2006) 

The pesticide used to spray Santa Cruz last year was the same product, but without a new active ingredient. The new and improved Checkmate contains two active ingredients. It is this version that will be used on Bay Area residents. The new version of the pesticide contains an active ingredient that has not been approved by the EPA. The picture below shows the original ingredient, (E)-11-tetradecen-1-yl acetate, which was in the original product, and the second ingredient, (E,E)-9,11-tetradecadien-1-yl acetate, which was not, and is the ingredient currently under exemption from EPA registration. 

 active-ingredients-in-checkmate.jpg

(C&EN, 2007) 

Tests have been conducted with the original version of Checkmate, but not on such a large scale. 

It is the second active ingredient, (E,E)-9,11-tetradecadien-1-yl acetate, that is the wild card. The EPA has not approved this new ingredient! In fact, the EPA has granted an exemption just for the Bay Area spraying and waived the public comment period due to the “emergency situation.” The following is taken from the EPA site: 

SUMMARY: EPA has received a quarantine exemption request from the United States Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service (USDA/APHIS) to use the pesticide (E,E)-9,11-tetradecadien-1-yl acetate (CAS No. 30562-09-5) to treat host plants tocontrol the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM). The Applicant proposes theuse of a new chemical which has not been registered by EPA. Due to the unique nature of this emergency situation, in which the time to reviewthe conditions of this situation was short, it was not possible toissue a solicitation for public comment, in accordance with 40 CFR166.24, prior to the Agency’s decision to grant these exemptions. 

DATES: EPA is waiving the public comment period, as allowed in 40 CFR166.24, due to the short period of time available with which to reviewthis situation and render a timely decision. However, comments maystill be submitted and will be evaluated. (EPA, 2007) 

This exemption is dated July 2007. The spraying is to begin in August 2008, over a year after the exemption was granted. “Because of that exemption, the spraying program isn’t subject to state approval, according to representatives of the state Department of Pesticide Regulation” (Kay, 2008). 

Just what is this emergency situation? Some say that it is no emergency at all. According to botanist Daniel Harder, Executive Director of the Arboretum at UC Santa Cruz, “It’s not such a nasty pest. You’re not going to see a plant succumbing to the Light Brown Apple Moth.” The bug is considered a minor pest in New Zealand, where it arrived from Australia, they say. (Kay, 2008) 

No eradication measures have been taken against the moth in New Zealand, and none are planned. The moth is a minor pest whose larvae are eaten by earwigs, birds, and spiders. Furthermore, “there is no widespread infestation of the light brown apple moth [in the U.S.], but U.S. Department of Agriculture officials say they are trying to head off a potential disaster” (Kay, 2008). Therefore, Bay Area residents will be sprayed with an untested unregulated pesticide on the pretense of this non-existent emergency by Stewart Resnick, owner of the largest farming operation of tree crops in the world, and one of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s top 100 contributors, and are basically told to just shut up and take it. Cities to be sprayed are as follows:

Alameda County:
Albany
Alameda
Piedmont
Emeryville
Oakland

Contra Costa County:
El Cerrito
El Sobrante
Hercules
Kensington
Pinole-N. Richmond
San Pablo

San Francisco County:
San Francisco

San Mateo County:
Daly City
Colma
Pacifica
San Bruno
South San Francisco

Marin County:
Tiburon
Belvedere
San Pablo
Corte Madera
Larkspur
Sausalito 

Copyright 2008, Barbara H. Peterson    References: Arnold Watch. (2008). Arnold’s Top 100 Donors. Retrieved from: http://www.arnoldwatch.org/special_interests/index.html C&EN. (2007). Rancor over Pesticide Spraying in California. Retrieved from: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i46/8546news3.html 

CBS 5. (2008). Outrage over Planned Bay Area Apple Moth Spraying. Retrieved from: http://cbs5.com/local/apple.moth.spraying.2.662703.html 

EPA. (2007). Federal Register Environmental Documents. Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2007/July/Day-06/p12872.htm 

Free Patents Online. (2008). Communication Disturbing Agents and Method for Disturbing Communication. Retrieved from: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP0962137.html 

Kay, J. (2008). Experts Question Plan to Spray to Fight Moths. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/06/MN69VD309.DTL 

Kay, J. (2008). State Plans Bay Area Pesticide Spraying. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from:  http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/15/MN99V2PMN.DTL 

Political Friendster. (2006). Rate the Roll International Corporation – Stewart Resnick Connection. Retrieved from: http://www.politicalfriendster.com/rateConnection.php?id1=5223&id2=5220

%d bloggers like this: