Moth Spin continues

Pub date April 11, 2008
WriterSarah Phelan
SectionPolitics Blog

Tiny moth, giant flap, aerial spraying of female pheromones begins soon.
“Everyone agrees, public should “rely on sound science” and shut the door on false information.”
moth1.jpg

So states a recent California Department of Food and Agriculture press release, as the state seeks to allay public outcry in face of an impending deadline to begin aerial spray for the Light Brown Apple Moth.

The press release quotes California Association of Professional Scientists President Patty Valez saying that, “The report released by the joint health departments revealed that there is no link between the Light Brown Apple Moth spraying program and reported symptoms. In fact, it underscores the importance of a sound scientific evaluation in what has turned into a controversial but important aerial spraying program.”
Moth2.jpg
The press release quotes Monterey Farm Bureau President Jason Smith saying, “IIf unchecked, the moth would damage native plants and would undermine our efforts to reduce pesticide use and improve water quality. It would raise international trade restrictions, erecting barriers to our farm exports and further weakening our rural economy.”

The release even draws on today’s Chronicle, which observes that “the state study noted most of the reports – even those requiring medical attention – were consistent with rates of common respiratory problems.”
But the release doesn’t report the reaction of Assemblymember John Laird, (D-Santa Cruz) whose district was sprayed last fall.

Maybe that’s because of Laird’s scathing response to the LBAM health affects report issued by the state Office of Environment Health Hazard Assessment, the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the Department of Public Health this week.
moth3.jpg
“I’m disappointed that what should have been a very serious scientific effort started long ago, became an exercise where just 10 percent of the reported cases were analyzed and the findings have been used effectively as spin for the CDFA,” Laird observed.

The CDFA did not mention that the California Organic Farmers no longer supports the spraying.

“To say that there is no information to indicate a link between the spraying and health affects is not the same as saying there is no link between spraying and health affects. The state did not reach out to a single doctor for the report. At a minimum, the reports associated with doctors should have been retrieved and given full analysis, including speaking with the reporting physicians.”