Short analysis of bills and how they relate to LBAM spraying

[isabelle]

Californians have a right to make informed decisions about pesticides sprayed over their homes and communities: Assembly bills AB2892, AB2763, AB2764, AB2765, AB2760 and resolutions SCR 87 and ACR 117

The current aerial pesticide spraying for the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) denies Californians their constitutional right to safety. Spraying began in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties in Fall 2007 as part of an emergency eradication effort by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and resulted in hundreds of health complaints as well as reports of environmental damage. The pesticides sprayed over these populated areas and sensitive ecosystems have not been tested for long-term human exposure and contain ingredients known to be toxic to humans and aquatic life. The spray program is slated to continue for many years and will expand to the San Francisco Bay Area this summer, despite great public opposition. What’s more, scientists say the spraying is unnecessary and unlikely to be effective, and that the moth has already been in California for many years without causing actual crop damage.

AB 2892 (Swanson) recognizes the rights of the people of California to determine personal exposure to toxic chemicals. This bill is central to the package as it protects citizens’ constitutional right of informed consent by requiring the CDFA to obtain a community’s approval before conducting aerial spraying of pesticides over an urban area. The requirement that approval of affected residents be obtained ensures that the State will have to make the full disclosures required to convince voters to consent to a spray action and that the types of top-down presentations and manipulation of information that have characterized the LBAM campaign will take place in the public arena for all affected voters to assess.

AB 2760 (Leno) calls for completion of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) before aerial application of pesticides in urban areas. While this seems self-evident, the EIR process for the LBAM eradication program has only just started, months after the first rounds of spraying, and the report is unlikely to be done when the program resumes this summer. Environmental Impact Reports should be initiated long before spraying takes place.

AB 2763 (Laird) requires adequate planning for responses to invasive species, a problem that is unlikely to go away in our world of global travel and trade. Potential pest control treatments would be disclosed well ahead of time and subjected to greater scrutiny than they now receive.

AB2764 (Hancock) prohibits aerial spray of urban areas without a governor-declared state of emergency. The current eradication program only needs approval by un-elected officials who are not directly responsible to the voters.

AB2765 (Huffman) sets new limits to the emergency powers of the Department of Agriculture by requiring the full disclosure of pesticide ingredients, examination of alternatives to aerial spraying, and a public hearing. Currently, it is the norm to keep the full list of chemical compounds and their concentrations in a pesticide a trade secret, and although the example of New Zealand suggests that LBAM is being kept under control by natural predators and sound Integrated Pest Management practices, these alternatives are not being considered by CDFA. Meaningful public process has been severely compromised in the LBAM campaign; the no-bid $500,000 contract with a public relations firm is just one example of the way the state has attempted to sell the spray using advertising techniques rather than providing a well-researched scientific justification for the spraying.

Write to support this legislation NOW!