Fight or Flight
FIGHT OR FLIGHT: Standing Up: HOPE attorney Alexander Henson (left) says the spray program, intended to eradicate the moth, violates state environmental law.—Jane Morba
EMAIL   •   PRINTER FRIENDLY   •   COMMENT
Posted October 25, 2007 12:00 AM
Fight or Flight

State releases list of moth spray ingredients, legal battle continues.

Now that the complete list of ingredients in the CheckMate pheromone products has been released, the public can focus on the question of whether they are safe. Though officials reply with a mollifying yes and activists with a nervous no, the answer is more like a murky maybe.

While the four ingredients comprising 97 percent of the product targeting the light brown apple moth are harmless to people, at least one of the “inert” ingredients making up the other 3 percent is associated with asthma and skin irritation. Several more could potentially impact marine health – though the overall effect may be small compared to that from urban and agricultural runoff (see sidebar, below).

On Oct. 20, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to release the complete list of ingredients in CheckMate LBAM-F, one of the two synthetic pheromone products that the department is using to combat the invasive moth. Officials plan to spray the Monterey Peninsula, parts of Salinas and Santa Cruz County with the product over the next several weeks.

The other product, CheckMate OLR-F, was sprayed by plane over the Monterey Peninsula in mid-September. The Santa Cruz Sentinel released a list of its inert ingredients two weeks later. The state Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) confirms that the Sentinel’s list is accurate – except for the inclusion of polymethylene polyphenyl isocyanate (PPI), which is used in the making of CheckMate but reacts into other compounds by the time it is ready to use.

Product manufacturer Suterra LLC fired back after the Sentinel published the list of inerts, alleging that it violated trade secret laws. (Suterra had provided the list to the DPR and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which gave it to the Sentinel.) When the Weekly named two of the inerts in a subsequent story, the company sued both papers for damages. But after a Los Angeles judge rejected the company’s motion to gag the newspapers, Suterra withdrew its lawsuit.

Another suit filed by Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment (HOPE), alleging that the spray program violates state environmental law, is still before the Monterey County Superior Court. On Oct. 10, Judge Robert O’Farrell ordered a temporary halt to the spraying due to health concerns related to PPI. Nine days later, after the EPA confirmed that the ingredient is not present in the end-use product, the judge lifted the injunction – giving the state a green light to renew spraying.

At the Oct. 18 hearing, Deputy Attorney General William Jenkins, representing the CDFA, told O’Farrell that HOPE’s lawsuit goes after the wrong agency, noting that the EPA has approved the emergency use of CheckMate. “They need to pursue other avenues if they want to continue this crusade,” he said.

But HOPE attorney Alexander Henson said the EPA’s exemption requires Suterra and the CDFA to report any adverse effects of the spraying. More than 100 Peninsula residents reported feeling ill after the September spraying, but “neither Suterra nor the state have contacted any of the declarants,” Henson said.

Officials have asked doctors to report illnesses that may be linked to the spraying to the county health department, which forwards them to the state Department of Pesticide Regulation for investigation – though only one such report had made it to the DPR by the Oct. 18 hearing. Jenkins said officials tried to follow up with the patient, but he was uncooperative.

The fuss over CheckMate leaves concerned residents wondering about alternatives. HOPE activists prefer sticky traps, which use synthetic pheromones to lure the moths. CDFA researchers are investigating other options, including the use of wasps to attack the moth’s eggs, “attract and kill” technology to lure adult male moths with pheromones and then kill them with a contact insecticide, and the release of sterile male moths. But those technologies are all one to three years away from being implemented, according to an Oct. 4 letter from state Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura to Assemblyman John Laird.

The EPA emergency permit also enables the state to use Disrupt MicroFlake, pheromone-coated plastic flakes that would be spread over the ground. Officials have experimented with “twist ties,” which encase the pheromone in flexible plastic ropes that attach to foliage and fences. But for now, those alternatives have taken a backseat as the state moves forward with the aerial spraying of CheckMate LBAM-F.

Before lifting the injunction, O’Farrell asked the state to establish testing and monitoring programs to assess whether the spray is damaging public health or the environment – a central question in HOPE’s lawsuit.

CDFA division director John Connell provided a written statement outlining the protocols already in place: collecting rinse and tank mix samples to ensure that the product is properly mixed and uncontaminated; laying down “dye cards” to assess the application rate; and recording flight data from the spray planes. The department also maintains a moth-related website, e-mail service and hotline; continues to hold community meetings; and sends out notices of upcoming sprays. Officials are convening an advisory task force to look into environmental and health concerns.

O’Farrell called the state’s response “vague,” saying it was not what he had anticipated. He asked if the CDFA had a health analysis of the spray itself and its effects as airborne particles. Jenkins said he didn’t know.

HOPE’s suggested monitoring protocol include: improving the illness complaint reporting process, following up with residents experiencing symptoms, and preparing an epidemiology study to assess the overall effects on public health. The group also asks for more information on the products’ ingredients and their impacts on the environment.

Results from the CDFA’s first dye card collection indicate that a small amount of CheckMate OLR-F did drift into waterways after the September treatment.

The first two aerial applications over the Monterey Peninsula cost roughly $3.7 million, $3.1 million of which was used to buy the CheckMate products, according to CDFA spokesman Jay Van Rein. The second Peninsula spray is scheduled to begin Oct. 24.  

PUBLIC MEETINGS WILL BE HELD 4-9PM THURSDAY, OCT. 25, AT THE SALINAS COMMUNITY CENTER, 940 N. MAIN ST., SALINAS AND 5:30-10PM FRIDAY, OCT. 26, AT CESAR E. CHAVEZ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, SALINAS. THE CDFA ILLNESS COMPLAINT HOTLINE IS 1-800-491-1899.

Add Your Comment »

Your Comments »

{date}
{title}
{user}: {body} read more »

{ds_PageNumber} {ds_PageNumber}

{title}
Article posted {date}, comments ({count})

{ds_PageNumber} {ds_PageNumber}

script> script>