Contact
the following web sites for complete information
Take action to protect yourself and your family.
Marin County 2-14-08 video hearing: http://marin.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=21&clip_id=2856
(3 hrs 20 minutes)
www.stopthespray.org (Be sure to sign the on-line petition)
www.hopefortruth.com/checkmate_lbam.htm (great information regarding the proposed aerial spray chemical)
Letter from CASS to Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency Administrator regarding particle size.
Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) Fact Sheet & Recommendations
1. The moth was classified by USDA as a pest requiring eradication more
than 30 years ago when organophosphates were heavily used in Australia and
New Zealand and wiped out beneficial predators against LBAM. When New Zealand
stopped use of organophosphates the predators returned and provided adequate
control of LBAM. No formal or independent reassessment of whether LBAM represents
the imminent economic danger as alleged by the State has been conducted
for 30 years. A formal independent reassessment of whether LBAM should be
classified as an eradicatable pest should be conducted.
2. LBAM is a superficial leaf roller. It does not destroy it nibbles and
dimples and only rarely the damaged fruit needs to be selected out and turned
into juice or sauce. The only real evidence or economic loss presented in
the CDFA’s Declaration of Emergency is a citation of the loss of 4.7 tons
of chardonnay grapes in Australia in 1992 at a time when organophosphates
were used. All other economic loss values used in the CDFA’s justification
are theoretical extrapolations. Actual figures of crop damage that were
used for the CDFA’s justification of this program should be made publicly
available and independently assessed.
3. In the Declaration of Emergency, the CDFA alleges that LBAM can cause
from 20% to 75% of damage to affected apple crops. The agricultural experts
in New Zealand reported to Dr. Harder that in a worst case scenario only
1% of host plants may be affected suggesting CDFA’s estimates are gross
extrapolations and exaggerations of actual numbers based on a theoretical
worst case scenario. A reassessment of the CDFA’s allegations of projected
crop damage should be conducted before the recommencement of its LBAM eradication
program in any county.
4. In a Powerpoint Presentation that CDFA will be providing to County and
State health officials next week they state: “The Department does not use
experimental or hypothetically effective tools in its eradication programs.”
According to CDFA entomologist Bob Dowell, also quoted in the Independent,
no pheromone has ever been used to eradicate an invasive species suggesting
the CDFA program is theoretical and hypothetical. Pheromones are only used
to control populations not for eradication. Respected entomologists in California
and New Zealand acknowledge this as fact and suggest the moth is too widespread
for eradication, requiring a shift to management. The State should be requested
to provide justification for their belief that pheromones as the primary
tool can achieve eradication.
5. In New Zealand there is 80% to 90% parasitism in LBAM and all leaf roller
populations. Natural and introduced biocontrols are effective against all
life stages in LBAM; eggs, larvae, pupa, and adults. CDFA should be asked
for their comparative data showing that the residential-based program they
have thus far outlined is actually needed and is the most effective
6. The pheromone pesticide Checkmate solution being used in aerial application
has not undergone formal testing by any State of Federal Agency and was
given approval under the emergency declaration. Furthermore, Checkmate has
never been applied over human populations. No appropriate studies with aerial
spray application of this solution have been carried out and the solution
contains known human and environmental toxins. Subsequent to the spraying
applications in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties, more than 600 human adverse
effects were collected. The lack of safety testing of this solution is acknowledged
by the Department of Pesticide Regulation. Appropriate safety studies should
be required before any future applications are applied in residential areas.
7. The CDFA alleges that LBAM may have a devastating effect on native plants
and trees and has used this as part of their justification to the public
that the eradication program is necessary. There is no data to support this
assertion. LBAM, like other pests, are predominantly a biological problem
in monocultures where the natural predatory balance is artificially distorted.
In natural habitats here in New Zealand no significant damage to native
flora has ever been reported. The CDFA should suspend the communication
of such inaccuracies as a way to win public support for their eradication
program.
8. The CDFA has reported that the eradication program was a result of recommendations
of a Technical Working Group (TWG) convened by USDA. Numerous recommendations
of the TWG have not been followed and at least one of the experts has substantial
conflicts of interest, having been funded by Suterra, the manufacturer of
the pheromone solution being used as the primary tool in this eradication
program. The recommendations of the TWG should be independently reviewed
against the plan initiated by the CDFA and appropriate oversight to prevent
economic conflict of interest assured.
For actions instructions on who to contact in Marin or the East Bay
Simple personal withdrawl: No chemical trespass letter