We welcome comments

If you'd like to post a comment, please email the editor at this address.

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Aerial Spraying: Not Safe, Not Effective, Not Necessary

Does being repeatedly sprayed with a toxic pesticide over the course of the next 5-10 years appeal to you? Consider that this pesticide has not been tested for its short or long-term effects on human health or its impacts on the environment. Then note that aerial spraying already began in late ’07 in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties resulting in over 600 health complaints, as well as reports of environmental damage.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) claims that it must conduct a blanket and long-term program of aerial pesticide spraying to eradicate an infestation of the light brown apple moth (LBAM) because it may pose a threat to various crops, plants and trees. It has declared a state of emergency in order to do this without environmental review or public health testing.

However the fact of the matter is that the LBAM has been in California for at least 30 years with no devastation of any crops or plant life, by CDFA’s own admission. The LBAM originated from New Zealand and Australia, has been there for 100 years or more, and there too no crop or plant life devastation on record. In fact those countries don’t use aerial spraying, and have opted for the least toxic and most natural methods of pest control that do not put human or environmental health at risk. So what is the “emergency”?

At least 10 Bay Area counties including Richmond, San Francisco and Marin have been targeted for blanket aerial spraying to begin in August of this year. Aerial and other blanket pesticide applications have repeatedly been shown in the past to upset natural ecosystem balance in unpredictable and often catastrophic ways, having serious human health effects as well. CDFA is relying on pesticides that contain ingredients that are highly toxic to aquatic life.

Incredibly the State began aerial spraying, initially in Santa Cruz and Monterey, before a mandatory environmental impact report (EIR) was conducted; skirting this environmental protection by declaring a state of emergency. Equally disturbing are the facts that aerial spraying of chemicals are expensive and inefficient, and biologists have testified that spraying is extremely unlikely to eradicate the LBAM.

A recent scientific study indicates that pesticide spray particles can penetrate deeply into the lungs posing a significant health risk. Most at risk are vulnerable populations: infants, children, the elderly, field workers and those with compromised immune systems. And most alarmingly the LBAM spraying program has not been tested for toxic health effects when used in areas of concentrated population. The State has relied almost entirely on its own scientists to address public concerns about the spray program, and has not employed independent outside experts to evaluate and support the program or address issues in a direct and impartial manner.

To date 19 cities and counties, representing over 850,000 people, have passed resolutions urging the Department of Food and Agriculture to impose a moratorium on any aerial spraying that is a part of the LBAM eradication campaign until the Department can demonstrate that the pesticide it has used or ones it may use is both safe to humans and animals. In addition bills in the state Senate and Assembly have called for protection of citizens constitutional rights of informed consent, and completion of an EIR before aerial application resumes.

Until independent and impartial testing is done one can only assume that blanket and prolonged aerial spraying is not safe, is not effective, and is not necessary.

No comments: