The California Department of Agriculture appears to have lost its sanity. Spraying an untested pesticide (a “plasticized pheromone”) which has never been tested for safety on people every 30 days over the San Francisco Bay area against a pest which has never infested the crops of the area or caused any crop damage while acknowledging that the substance could cause serious [fatal?] harm to people seems to make sense to them.

It does not make sense to me, but then, I am not on anyone’s payroll who makes these substances and will reap $74.5 million dollars for spraying the untested pesticide “CheckMate” over cities (and wild habitats neighboring) Monterey, Santa Cruz, Alameda, San Jose and San Francisco at least once every month until 2010. Does the same financial independence exist among the people who applied for an “emergency exemption from registration” from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency? This exemption, for an emergency that does not exist, allows the agency to use the pesticide in aerial sprays over California cities. Because of that exemption, the spraying program is not subject to state approval, according to representatives of the state Department of Pesticide Regulation.

Toxicity tests on CheckMate itself were apparently never conducted, nor were such tests conducted on the combined ingredients in the product. Toxicity test were carried out with “other leptidopteron pheromones” [i.e., compounds similar to the active ingredient in Checkmate] which apparently allowed the CFDA to conclude that all pheromones of that nature are similar [a highly questionable conclusion] yet the 75% or so other ingredients in CheckMate were not tested. “Inert ingredients” like the ones in Checkmate can be highly biologically active and pose significant threats to people, animals and ecosystems.

In fact, on Jan 5, 2008 the CDFA admitted that they had “neither the jurisdiction nor expertise to conduct an epidemiological study of the complaints, and no public health agency at this point has said they will review the illness claims.” That means that the symptoms reported during spraying of CheckMate over Monterey (which included asthma, coughing, muscle aches and headaches, as well as any long term impacts to either single exposures of monthly exposures over a 5 year period as currently planned for the Bay Area may well be the harbingers of major health problems for the millions of people exposed to this untested substance.

When local activists challenged the spraying in Santa Cruz on October 10, 2007, Judge Robert O’Farrell issued a temporary restraining order that which stopped the area’s second round of spraying until Oct. 18, when a hearing was scheduled to consider additional evidence in a lawsuit filed by Peninsula activists.

O’Farrell named the active ingredient in CheckMate— polymethylene polyphenyl isocyanate, or PPI, which is listed as a “hazardous agent” by the National Institutes of Health on the agencies’ Web site as the offending agent. The site noted reports of occupational asthma among spray painters exposed to it. Checkmate is made by Suterra.

The tests which were conducted mentioned ingestion and skin/eye application as problems, but not complications arising from inhalation. Claiming the plasticized capsules containing the pheromone are too large to directly enter the lung it is curious that the potential for irritation to the larynx, pharynx, and tracheo-bronchial passages are mentioned although apparently the safety profile in the respiratory tract was never tested.

Toxicity tests are done to determine whether the dosage is lethal but not what long term complications could arise after inhaling the substance.

Another concern about the CheckMate program is the ecological impact. There is little available information to suggest that the fragile and productive ecosystems of the Bay Area, both land and water based, will be left unharmed by the polymethylene polyphenyl isocyanate in Checkmate because no environmental impact statement has been filed.

Following you will find an article from the San Francisco Chronicle and a summary of the problems inherent in this mad scheme.

Pushback – our response to these assaults – is essential if we are to control and to safeguard our environments and our health. Help us push back! Disseminate this information, tell people about the Natural Solutions Foundation and urge them to go to the website, www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and sign up for the free, secure and informative Health Freedom eAlerts (http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=187). Natural Solutions Foundation – We are more than just talk!
Donate (http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189)generously with a recurring tax deductible donation to the Natural Solutions Foundation, www.HealthFreedomUSA.org.

Thanks!

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation

www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

Now, an article from the San Francisco Chronicle:

The Light Brown Apple Moth which means that no State approval is required?
State plans Bay Area pesticide spraying

Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer

The [California] state agriculture department plans to use airplanes at night this summer to spray a farm pesticide over urban San Francisco, Marin County and the East Bay, intending to eradicate a potentially destructive moth.

The little-known proposal to wipe out the light brown apple moth, which if it became established could destroy the region’s agricultural industry, has developed increasing opposition among some residents who fear for their health.

Hundreds of people whose homes and yards were sprayed in Santa Cruz and Monterey counties from September to December have filed reports that said the pesticide seems to have caused coughing, wheezing, muscle aches and headaches, among other symptoms. One Monterey family reported that a child had a first-time asthma attack.

State officials say the amount of pesticide applied shouldn’t pose severe health risks, but they’ve also refused to rule out that the spray can affect humans, particularly sensitive people such as children and the elderly.

Spraying of the pesticide, called Checkmate, is expected to begin in the Bay Area in August and could continue for five years over San Francisco, Daly City, Colma, Oakland, Piedmont, Emeryville, El Cerrito, El Sobrante, Tiburon and Belvedere. Other chemicals could also be used.

Before its use in Santa Cruz and Monterey last year, the pesticide, a hormone that throws off the scents of mating moths, had been used aerially only over farms and never over populated areas.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture obtained an “emergency exemption from registration” from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that allows the agency to use the pesticide in aerial sprays over California cities. Because of that exemption, the spraying program isn’t subject to state approval, according to representatives of the state Department of Pesticide Regulation.

There is no widespread infestation of the light brown apple moth, but U.S. Department of Agriculture officials say they are trying to head off a potential disaster. The federal agency has given the California Department of Food and Agriculture $74.5 million to conduct the spraying program, which officials say is warranted because an international survey of pests ranks the moth high as a threat, and moths have been found in the state, primarily in the Bay Area. The little moth was first trapped in Alameda County in March. The state agricultural agency followed up and found moths in 11 counties, said Larry Hawkins, a USDA spokesman.

The moth’s larvae stunts seedlings, pits leaves and can damage fruit trees, citrus and grapes.

Its potential spread to almost every plant around, including native trees, threatens crops worth up to $640 million a year, he said. The pesticide over time reduces the moth population by interfering with its ability to reproduce and doesn’t require the use of a more toxic insecticide, Hawkins said.

Steve Lyle, a spokesman for the state agricultural department, said new trapping data for 2008 could change the aerial spray program set for Marin, San Francisco and the East Bay.

“But right now, based on what we know, it will go ahead,” he said.

In response to complaints from residents from Santa Cruz and Monterey counties, several state agencies – the Department of Pesticide Regulation, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Public Health Department – issued a statement that acknowledged that eye, skin or respiratory irritations reported by residents could have been caused by high applications but not by low ones.

“The toxicological information on the Checkmate product indicates that exposure to high levels of the applied material would be consistent with many of the reported symptoms,” the statement read.

The pesticide levels used in Santa Cruz and Monterey counties were extremely low, the agencies said, making it unlikely that anyone was exposed to a high dose.

However, the statement cautioned that “not all health effects can be predicted and because the general population includes susceptible (people), such as children, the elderly and those with chronic diseases, we cannot provide a definitive cause for their symptoms.”

The USDA’s Hawkins said the EPA has generally not been concerned over the toxicity of Checkmate. For example, he said, the agency never set a maximum limit for the pesticide in food or required farm workers to stay out of fields that had just been sprayed.

“It’s not a material the EPA would have any concern about,” Hawkins said.

Many residents in Santa Cruz and Monterey counties are joining an umbrella group, California Alliance to Stop the Spray, or CASS, to fight the continuing spraying program, which is expected to resume June 1.

More than 600 people from the two counties have reported symptoms, including asthma attacks, bronchial irritation, lung congestion and soreness, difficulty breathing, coughing and eye and throat irritation.

Dr. Randy Baker, a family practitioner in Soquel, said he treated about a dozen patients with a range of symptoms when the area was being sprayed. Although he said there was no way to ascertain a cause-and-effect relationship, he had a number of concerns about the pesticide, including the fact that it was not tested for use over urban areas.

“There is tremendous individual variation in the ability of people to process and detoxify environmental chemicals. For example, there could be a prescription medicine that 100 people take with minimal adverse effect but another person could take it and suffer extreme side effects and even death,” Baker said.

Baker was also shocked that the agricultural department started spraying the chemical on an evening when people were out walking in Santa Cruz.

“At 8 p.m., they started spraying in the most populated areas of Santa Cruz County. I have patients who didn’t know the spray was happening who were out walking on Mission Avenue. Clearly, the greatest danger is a person being out of doors when the planes are going over. They’re going to be inhaling the chemicals,” Baker said.

Further complicating the issue is that some residents say they simply don’t trust the government information. The pheromone is not the only chemical in the spray. Checkmate also contains at least 10 other ingredients.

The product contains a surfactant, which could have coated the more than 600 birds that turned up injured after the spraying last year as far north as Año Nuevo and south to Del Monte Beach in Monterey, they say. Government agencies attributed the substance that coated the birds to algal changes.

Elizabeth Quinn, a resident of Santa Cruz, is among those opposed.

On Nov. 9, starting at midnight, the planes flew 500-feet above Quinn’s house in Santa Cruz until 5:30 in the morning.

“They came over every 20 to 30 minutes, back and forth, back and forth,” she said. Quinn didn’t suffer any health problems after the sprays, but she is worried about the people who did.

“I have 6-year-old and 3-year-old grandsons,” she said, “and I’m very concerned about their health.”

Also Thursday, about 80 people turned up at a hearing held by Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, who heads the Assembly’s Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee. State health and agricultural officials and members of nonprofit groups presented details of the pending program, and most of the public that spoke were concerned about aerial spraying.

Last month, the Albany City Council voted unanimously to oppose the spraying, and the nonprofit Center for Environmental Health started holding meetings, the first in Oakland, to address questions from worried residents.

A series of meetings is scheduled this month to discuss the environmental reports of the moth-eradication program in the Bay Area.
Light brown apple moth

Problem: Larvae of the tiny moth, a native of Australia and much smaller than a penny, feeds on more than 2,000 plants and trees.

Eradication: Officials plan to spray pesticide to disturb its mating. More information: links.sfgate.com/ZCLW.

Source: California Department of Food and Agriculture

And an article listing the problems with LBAM spraying:

STOP AERIAL PESTICIDE SPRAYING IN CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN MARIN

What’s wrong with the LBAM spraying?
1.Hundreds of people in Santa Cruz and Monterey County have reported adverse health reactions. The spray has not been tested for long-term human toxicity and is being applied in microscopic plastic capsules that could pose inhalation risks.
2.The spray contains ingredients that are highly toxic to aquatic species, as well as surfactants, that might have contributed to algae bloom (red tide) and the death of hundreds of waterfowl.
3.Biologists agree that the spraying – an outdated, unsustainable, expensive pest control method – will not eradicate the moth. The CDFA should switch to a control vs. an eradication program using least-toxic methods that farmers already apply, e.g. sticky traps.
4.CDFA itself says the moth has done no crop damage in California to date. Priority must be given to public and environmental health and safety over speculative economic loss.
5.The aerial spray program disproportionately impacts vulnerable segments of the population, including those with the recognized disability of multiple chemical sensitivity, who are in many cases forced to relocate, and the homeless, who have no option to protect themselves from spraying.