Apple
moth issue merits science-based review
Posted:
Thursday, May 1st, 2008
BY: JOHN
LAIRD
Last summer, the
California Department of Food and Agriculture announced the
light brown apple moth, or LBAM, had been found in Northern
California, with the largest finds in the Monterey Bay area.
By the fall, planes were aerially spraying urban areas around
the bay.
While CDFA has insisted the spray used isn’t a
traditional pesticide and isn’t harmful, public concern about
the spray’s safety has dogged CDFA’s efforts from the start.
The past few weeks have been especially rough for CDFA’s LBAM
eradication program on a number of fronts.
The program
has suffered several significant setbacks, most important
among them a Superior Court judge’s ruling to stop spraying in
Santa Cruz County until environmental review is completed.
Additionally, Governor Schwarzenegger has delayed spraying
until new health tests are conducted. And five LBAM-related
bills have passed their first hurdles in Sacramento, two of
which I’ve authored.
It’s a daily challenge to make
sense of the many questions that continue to circle the LBAM
issue. Two good examples are the court ruling and the
governor’s decision to delay the spraying, both of which came
on the same day.
The court ruling came first, stating
spraying cannot happen in Santa Cruz County until the
environmental review process has been completed-which
typically takes more than a year.
Just hours after the
ruling, the governor delayed spraying statewide until at least
Aug. 17, in order to conduct toxicology tests targeting humans
and animals. Since last August I’ve called for independent
third-party analysis of the state’s program — we need that
same approach with these new tests.
As the clock ticks
on the court cases, environmental review, governor’s delay and
bills in Sacramento, it’s not just human health we should be
concerned about. The health of our farming industry is also
threatened — but not because of the crop damage issues often
cited by CDFA.
I’m referring to the increasing
possibility that spraying may be blocked through court action,
and what kind of financial impact that will mean for farmers
suffering the cost of quarantine for a pest with zero
documented crop or environmental damage in California—a fact
CDFA confirmed in court.
With or without spraying,
farmers will continue to bear the cost of operating under
quarantine. How will CDFA fulfill its obligation to protect
farmers if the eradication program fails?
The financial
strain on nursery growers and organic farmers is already
significant — in Santa Cruz County alone, LBAM-related
financial losses at nurseries totaled nearly $3 million in
2007, and have caused one nursery to go out of business. Major
expenses include hiring staff for required LBAM inspections
and spraying of pesticides. Again, all of this is caused by a
pest with no recorded damage in the state.
At its core,
LBAM is an international trade issue — the federal government
classifies LBAM as a “Class A” pest. The Technical Working
Group (TWG) — appointed by CDFA and upon whose work CDFA based
its eradication plan—recommended a “biological assessment,” a
process that helps determine a pest’s classification. Lacking
a response from CDFA to this recommendation, I have joined
with Congressmember Farr in asking the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to answer questions about the classification of
LBAM.
Other unanswered issues raised by the TWG include
concerns that weather conditions may reduce the spray plan’s
effectiveness, and whether eradication is even possible.
Questions about effectiveness are exacerbated by the
fact that nearly six months after the last round of spraying,
CDFA has not revealed if the spraying had any impact on the
LBAM population.
Questions also swirl around a recent
state health report stating there isn’t enough evidence to
determine whether there are health links between the spraying
and the hundreds of reported health complaints after the
Monterey Bay area was sprayed.
One thing is clear — the
LBAM issue isn’t going away. It’s an incredibly complex issue,
with new information revealed continuously. LBAM is giving us
a refresher course on high school civics, with all three
branches of state government engaged in substantive ways:
judicial (court cases), legislative (bills in Sacramento) and
executive (CDFA and the governor).
Hopefully the work
of the three branches will lead to a science-based,
independent review of the LBAM issue—a healthy outcome for the
public, the environment and farming hangs in the
balance.
•••
John Laird represents the 27th
Assembly District and is the chair of the Assembly Budget
Committee. For more information on LBAM, visit his Web site at
www.assembly.ca.gov/laird. The opinions of columnists are not
necessarily those of the
Register-Pajaronian.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
(Published
in 5/2/08 edition)
|
|
| |
|
