Petition For Reclassification Of LBAM

[isabelle]

This document makes the case for Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) being wrongfully classified as the most dangerous and voracious of non-native insects in California. Submitted to the USDA as a formal petition to review the current classification it could potentially end all trade issues, quarantines and eradication efforts of the moth. No less!

Downloads:

Reclassification Petition Summary RU.doc

LBAM Reclassification: Summary of Findings: 20 pages

(94.5 KB) Downloaded 125 times

Reclassification Petition 1.1.pdf

Full petition: 106 pages

(8.08 MB) Downloaded 95 times

September 12, 2008

AG Kawamura, Secretary of Agriculture
California Department of Agriculture
1220 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814


Dear Secretary Kawamura,

I hope you are well. We respectfully submit this petition as a formal request to reclassify
the light brown apple moth (LBAM) from an actionable to a non-actionable pest. This
request is supported by the preponderance of scientific information and independent
expert opinion and was supported by many of the findings presented at the recent
scientific symposium on LBAM convened by the USDA in July 2008.
The findings and recommendations utilized by USDA for its LBAM eradication
program were based on reviews of data and experiences from the year 2000 and before.
This was in an era of heavy organophosphate use, an agricultural practice, which caused
many pests to reach levels of injuriousness far greater than if more sustainable
agricultural practices had been deployed. In fact, going back as far as 1937, the scientific
literature on LBAM clearly reflects a profile of LBAM as a minor pest, problematic only
when very poor agricultural practices or anomalous conditions arise.
Post-2000 data and experience show that LBAM should be handled as a cropquality
issue, not as a quarantinable pest. Additionally, the evaluations of LBAM used by
USDA in its classification of the LBAM as an actionable pest were drawn from only a
small sampling of the available scientific literature; what’s more, only small
unrepresentative extracts from that literature were cited. Further, the literature
definitively shows that LBAM constitutes absolutely no threat to native forests anywhere
in the world, either where LBAM is endemic or has been naturalized. Allegations by your
Agency of such damage are completely without scientific support.
Only a few members of the CDFA Technical Working Group (TWG) have
significant experience with LBAM specifically. As a consequence, many of the
recommendations made by the TWG do not accurately reflect the nature of LBAM, in
particular the relative ease with which it is managed in agricultural settings. Yet, the
TWG’s overall lack of experience with LBAM has been curiously coupled with a fervent
desire to eradicate LBAM, a goal that numerous independent experts say is neither
needed nor achievable. Even so, many of the recommendations of the TWG reported as
critical to eradication have not been implemented by CDFA. Moreover, many of the tools
central to eradication (e.g. aerial spraying of biocidal agents, pheromone sprays, and
placement of twist ties on private properties) have been obstructed by public opposition,
which is guaranteed to continue.
By contrast, our petition shows that numerous experts support the reclassification
of the LBAM. Letters expressing their opinions and endorsements of this petition are
attached. The data presented in this petition clearly show LBAM to be a minor pest
similar to other superficial leafrollers, perhaps the closest being the orange tortrix
(Argyrotaenia franciscana syn. A. citrana). The same controls that are used for other
leafrollers and insects (such as the orange tortrix, omnivorous leafroller, and codling
moth) also control for LBAM. While each of these insects require monitoring and
varying levels of control, none of them constitute a level of threat warranting eradication.
It is our contention that LBAM similarly does not warrant its current status as an pest in
need of eradication.
The LBAM eradication program has pitted the public against agricultural
interests. We do not believe any good comes from such antagonism. History teaches and
the scientific literature supports that effective agriculture programs, especially eradication
programs, require public support.
In light of the information provided herein this program should not continue, as
LBAM is not a pest of major economic significance from a biological perspective. The
case for eradication needs to be examined formally within the context of modern
agriculture practices and according to internationally accepted pest-risk assessment
standards. Hence, our petition.
We respectfully ask that you subject our petition to a formal review of experts
willing to look at a complete presentation of the scientific literature. This literature
examines LBAM lifecycles, ecology, and agricultural impacts in modern agricultural
settings. This petition should be reviewed within the context of modern experience in the
management of LBAM and according to internationally accepted standards of pest riskassessment.
We feel such a review is necessary before any further pesticide treatments of
residential areas are undertaken. Exposing people in their homes to pesticides is a serious
matter and should not be implemented without solid scientific justification. Justification
for doing so thus far has been based on an outdated and faulty understanding of LBAM
biology.
Sincerely yours,

Roy Upton LBAM Liaison
Citizens for Health
Soquel, CA

Daniel Harder PhD
Botanist/Ecologist
Santa Cruz, CA

Ken Kimes
Greensward Farms
Aptos, CA

cc:
CDFA Secretary Ed Schafer
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Congressman Sam Farr
Assemblyman John Laird
Senator Carol Migden
Assemblyman Jared Huffman
Senator Mark Leno

[isabelle]

Several letters of support were submitted by esteemed entomologists. These are included in the
appendix to the petition document. Below are some excerpts of these endorsements.

Dr. James R. Carey, PhD, entomologist at UC Davis with specialties in invasion biology, insect demography, and population dynamics. Dr. Carey served on the CDFA medfly scientific advisory panel from 1987 to 1994. An excerpt from his letter of support:

... I read with great interest your manuscript titled "Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) Eradication Program: Formal Petition to Reclassify LBAM as a Non-quarantinable Pest". My impression after reading it is that both the USDA and CDFA should take this document seriously and use it to re-visit their original (probably default) decision to keep LBAM on the class A list once it was discovered in California. You lay out in meticulous detail the evidence for why it should not be considered a pest any more serious (and perhaps much less serious) than any of the already-established leaf rollers in the state. Your document is well written, comprehensive and compelling.

Dr. Derrell Chambers, PhD, (retired) laboratory director, USDA and Hilary Lorraine, PhD (retired),
Environmental Policy analyst, USAID and various NGO's. This is the beginning of their letter of support:

Dear Dr. Harder and Mr. Upton, We have reviewed your petition calling for the reclassification of the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM). The document you prepared is well researched and is the most comprehensive assessment of LBAM biology and impact that we have seen to date. We agree that the current classification of LBAM is not warranted in light of the scientific review you and your colleagues have produced. The current classification of LBAM is based on out-of-date information, incomplete understanding of LBAM biology, and does not reflect the true potential agricultural impact of LBAM on agriculture within the context of modern practices.

Some more background on Dr. Derrell Chambers: He retired from the U. S. Department of Agriculture in 1994 after nearly 40 years largely devoted to developing pheromones and hormones as they emerged as new opportunities to avoid the use of pesticides. He was the Laboratory Director of ARS research in Mexico and Hawaii concentrating on the technologies now in use in California and elsewhere to manage and eradicate pests such as the Mediterranean fruit fly and the Mexican Fruit Fly. In 1968 he became Director of a new ARS facility in Gainesville, Florida, created specifically to conduct research on insect pheromones and hormones.

Dr. Frank Zalom, PhD, entomologist at UC Davis writes:

I have reviewed your petition calling for a reclassification of the light brown apple moth (LBAM) and think that you have done a very credible and thorough job of laying out concerns and documenting what literature exists regarding LBAM and its potential threat to agriculture and native environments.

[bpm4327]

Several elected officials have sent letters to USDA, urging to review the science that classified the LBAM as Class A insect, leading to trade quarantines and eradication programs.

[i]9/29/09 - California Assemblyman John Laird's Letter to U.S. Secretary Ed Schafer re: "Light Brown Apple Moth Reclassification Petition by Daniel Harder PhD, Ken Kimes, Roy Upton, and Lynette Casper"

Laird Schafer Reclassification Petition 9SEP08.pdf

(267.6 KB) Downloaded 78 times

Today, dozens of local, state and federal officials, several University of California scientists and countless other Californians not only have serious questions about the efficacy and safety of the LBAM program, they challenge the scientific underpinnings as well. I share their concern that multi-million dollar decisions are possibly being made based on outdated and/or incomplete scientific and monitoring data, and that these decisions could be placing Californians, the environment and agriculture at risk.

[isabelle]

Call to action: Contact Congressman Sam Farr:

It was in the news recently -USDA is giving serious consideration to the petition to reclassify the Light Brown Apple Moth (http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20 ... /901110344). The moth's declassification could end the whole eradication program.

* Tell Sam Farr to take an active role in ensuring a fair and balanced review of the petition to reclassify LBAM.
* Tell Sam Farr to follow-up on his now three-month old declaration that he would bring the LBAM eradication program to the attention of the budget subcommittee on agriculture, which he is a member of.

If anything, the LBAM eradication program is an unnecessary and irresponsible expenditure -here is a way to cut costs and do the right thing at the same time!

Congressman Sam Farr
100 West Alisal Street
Salinas, CA 93901
831-424-2229
800-340-FARR
Fax 831-424-7099

[Guest]

Also ask for every pest and plant that is on the list be reviewed. Since, once an evasive plant or pest is found - the agriculture seems to go on for years and years draining the system for money to chase it, endlessly to no avail.
Let's ask for a new list be drawn. Instead of spending millions of dollars on a pest, (like the LBAM, which has not been clearly documented to do any damage), updated the list of plants or insects and then remove any that have clearly been in the USA and are not doing damage, or those wrongly put on the list, like the LBAM. This would take checking with other countries, pertaining to that, to verify certain plants or pests are verified not a threat.
So, to reclassify the LBAM, which has been here for many years, has had no crop damage, and seems to have settled in for many many years with no ill effects, needs to be left alone. Sometimes mother nature is better on it's own.
Sometimes, their are wize ole gardeners and farmers that can be invested in cheaper, to help know what works safely better, instead of spending millions of dollars needlessly.
thanks for listening

[bpm4327]

Stop The Spray Meets With Pelosi's Staff

A group of scientists and citizens met with Speaker Pelosi's staff to present information supporting their petition to remove the 'pest' classification for the Light Brown Apple Moth.

Video - 6/17/09 - Stop The Spray Meets Pelosi's Staff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpAH7dRSt5o

[bpm4327]

Call To Action - LBAM Reclassification Petition

Review of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Response to Petitions to Reclassify the Light-Brown Apple Moth as a Non-Actionable Pest

National Academy of Sciences is finally reviewing LBAM reclassification, though it looks like they may only be reviewing the "response" by USDA-APHIS to the petition, but not the petition itself. Below are the details about the project, followed by the list of people to be on the review committee, followed by information about their second meeting on July 23, 2009.

The approximate start date is June 1, 2009. Provide feedback on the project, which is open for 3 months in duration of the review.

USDA LBAM Reclassification Petition:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/Pr ... BANR-09-01

[bpm4327]

LBAM Sterile Moth Release Program - Stephan Volker Comments

Stephan Volker, Attorney, Letter - 7/3/09 - To USDA LBAM Sterile Moth Release Program:
http://www.lbamspray.com/00_Documents/2 ... EA7309.pdf

[isabelle]

Whitewashing the Moth?

Opponents of the government's war on the light brown apple moth are worried that the National Academy of Sciences may effectively endorse more aerial spraying.

By Robert Gammon, East Bay Express
September 9, 2009
Original article
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/whit ... id=1189978

The light brown apple moth has been out of the headlines for a while, but it may be coming back with a vengeance. State and federal officials are finishing up an environmental impact report on their plans to eradicate the insect, and hope to soon launch a new round of aerial pesticide spraying. Opponents, meanwhile, are gearing up for another fight to halt the government's plans, and had been hoping for help from the National Academy of Sciences. But now they're worried that the academy may effectively endorse the massive eradication effort.

A panel from the academy has been looking into the light brown apple moth over the past two months and is poised to release a report next week. At first, opponents of the government's extermination plan welcomed the academy's review because they believe that state and federal officials have wildly overstated the moth's threat to California crops and native plants. But now they fear that the academy's report may be nothing more than a whitewash. "It is paid science, and in my opinion will be yet another in a long list of examples of how bureaucracies buy the science they want and then claim their positions have been independently supported," Roy Upton, a leading opponent of aerial spraying and a member of the grassroots group Citizens for Health, wrote in a letter last month to the academy panel.

The controversy over the light brown apple moth first exploded nearly two years ago when the California Department of Food and Agriculture started spraying pesticides over populated areas in Santa Cruz and Monterey counties. State and federal officials planned to spray over the East Bay too and claimed the moth was a grave threat both to California's lucrative agricultural industry and to native pine and redwood forests. The US Department of Agriculture has estimated that the moth could inflict up to $118 million in damage each year to apple, grape, orange, and pear crops alone.

But after hundreds of people reported becoming sick from the aerial spraying, and anti-pesticide activists and public agencies filed suit, state officials temporarily halted the eradication plan. A Santa Cruz County judge ruled that the state could not start spraying again until it had conducted an environmental review. But that review is now nearly complete — the last public hearing on it was held in downtown Oakland last week — and state officials are readying themselves for a new round of spraying. (Like most such environmental reviews, it substantiates rather than questions what the public agency wants.) Although the state has promised not to spray in urban areas and has changed pesticides, opponents say the new chemicals have not been thoroughly tested and that damage to rural areas, including plants and animals, has not been adequately examined. Like the last round of spraying, the state plans to use pheromones to disrupt the moth's mating habits.

In addition to filing lawsuits, some opponents of the government's war on the moth filed a petition with the USDA, requesting that it officially downgrade the light brown apple moth's status from major pest to one that farmers can control on their own. Such a reclassification would permanently halt the mandated widespread use of pesticides. The upcoming National Academy of Sciences report is partly in response to the petition. Some experts had high hopes for the petition, which was written by Upton and Daniel Harder, a botanist and director of the UC Santa Cruz Arboretum, because they say it represents the most thorough scientific review of the moth to date. The hundred-plus page petition has been endorsed by top researchers in the field, including Frank Zalom and James Carey, two respected professors of entomology at UC Davis.

Zalom told Eco Watch that the government's plan to exterminate the moth is a waste of time and money because the bug is already "tremendously widespread" in California. The moth has been trapped in at least fifteen counties — and could be in three times that many. Researchers also have found heavy concentrations in urban areas, particularly in San Francisco, which further complicates any eradication effort. Moreover, the fact that the moth has been in California already for at least several years and has yet to inflict significant damage suggests that the government's concerns are overblown, Zalom said. "I think the more rational approach would be to reclassify it," he said, "and have growers learn to live with it."

Carey, meanwhile, says there is strong reason to believe that the moth has actually been here for thirty to fifty years because of its distribution pattern throughout California. At a state senate hearing last month, Carey called the moth "widespread and entrenched," adding that there "is every reason to believe" that the moth is in every county in the state. And like Zalom, he believes that the $90 million extermination campaign is foolhardy. "There is no precedent for eradicating any moth species anywhere in the world," he said at the hearing.

As for the petition itself, it provides a convincing case for why the light brown apple moth should not be feared. It points to research that notes that the moth has lived for more than one hundred years in Australia, New Zealand, and Hawaii without any report of sustained damage to crops or local flora. The reason is that the moth has several natural predators and parasites that keep it in check, including wasps and spiders. In fact, once farmers stopped using poisonous organophosphate insecticides that also kill the moth's predators and parasites, they had no problem keeping the light brown apple moth in check — even with the tough US standards for exports. Indeed, there is strong reason to believe that Australia, New Zealand, and Hawaii would not pay much attention to the moth were it not for the USDA's quarantine. Plus, the petition notes that there is no convincing evidence that the moth presents a serious threat to forests in places where it has flourished.

The petition also points to scientific research that shows the moth has lived for several decades in Great Britain, Ireland, Eastern Europe, and India without serious problems — again, apparently because of natural predators. In fact, the 28 countries of the European Union do not quarantine for the light brown apple moth because they consider it a minor pest. The moth feeds on a wide variety of leaves and is what's known as a leafroller, because in its larval stage, it rolls itself up in a leaf for protection. However, the vast majority of larvae never become moths in part because parasites, such as wasps, lay their eggs inside the moth larvae, thereby taking them over and killing them.

Originally, Upton and his fellow opponents were ecstatic when they learned that the USDA had asked a panel from the National Academy of Sciences to look into the light brown apple moth. But they became dismayed when they discovered that the USDA had greatly narrowed the scope of the panel's inquiry. According to Upton, an academy staffer working on the issue told him that the panel would not be examining the petition itself, but only whether the USDA's response to it could be scientifically supported. In short, the panel apparently is not looking into whether the moth should be downgraded at all. The petition wasn't even on the panel's official list of what it planned to review for its report, said Upton, a medical writer and editor from Santa Cruz who has worked for the National Institutes of Health.

So far, the USDA's official response to the petition remains secret, but Upton believes the agency has denied their request for reclassification and has hired the academy to substantiate that denial. Upton notes that the USDA recently pumped $3 million into an advertising campaign called "Hungry Pests" to support their eradication efforts. A video ad in the campaign features a young girl skipping through the countryside while ominous music plays in the background and a narrator warns about the dangers of invasive insects. Then at the end of the thirty-second spot, the girl suddenly disintegrates into a bunch of scary bugs. Upton said in an interview that if the USDA thought that the academy panel was planning to recommend reclassification of the moth, it would not have embarked on an over-the-top campaign, nor would the state be moving ahead with an environmental review that focuses on the moth's supposed threat while glossing over any possible dangers posed by pesticides. "It's clearly preordained," he said.

In addition, Upton and members of Pesticide Action Network, which also filed a reclassification request, are concerned about the makeup of the academy panel. They note that one of the panelists worked for the USDA for 31 years on implementing quarantines, while another is a US Department of Forestry researcher whose previous work was used by the USDA to formulate its hard-line stance on the moth.

However, Upton is not without some hope. Among the panelists is Jerry Powell, a retired UC Berkeley entomologist and expert on leafrollers, who was the first to discover the light brown apple moth in California when he found it in his backyard in July 2006. Powell is on record saying the USDA should not quarantine for the light brown apple moth because it's already too widespread.

The academy panel also includes Nicholas Mills, a UC Berkeley professor who has done considerable work on the light brown apple moth. In fact, Mills announced earlier this year that he had discovered at least thirteen species in California that are natural parasites of the moth — thereby providing evidence that the bug is already being controlled naturally here.

In addition, Mills coauthored a study, completed in July, that revealed that much of the Central Valley, Southern California, and Arizona may be too hot, and some areas too cold, for the moth to flourish, contradicting assumptions made by the USDA. The moth's potential range is one of the reasons why federal officials fear it will destroy large swaths of crops. But Mills' study concluded that the moth cannot thrive in areas that are too hot or too cold, and so it appears to pose much less of a threat than the USDA believes, thereby suggesting "the need for reevaluation of the current pest status of [the light brown apple moth] in the United States."

Mills declined to comment on the upcoming academy report or on his research, saying the panel had agreed not to discuss the light brown apple moth publicly until the report is published on September 14.

[bpm4327]

Petition for Reclassification of LBAM - News & Update

The USDA stated that they hired the National Academy of Science (NAS) to review the LBAM reclassification petition when in fact the USDA actually told the NAS to review the USDA’s process to eradicate and to NOT review the scientific merits of reclassifying LBAM.

Whether the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) was within its regulatory authority to classify the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) as a pest that qualifies for quarantine and eradication is examined in a new report from the National Research Council to be released on Monday - September 14, 2009.

Source:
http://www.lbamspray.com/00_Documents/2 ... 091009.pdf

Communications from Roy Upton, Assemblymember Jared Huffman and Senator Mark Leno, and the National Academy of Science (NAS) about the reclassification petition:
http://www.lbamspray.com/00_Documents/2 ... terNAS.pdf