Light Brown Apple Moth Spraying bibliography

I recently wrote a Terra Firma newsletter questioning the tactics of the people who are fighting to stop the spraying of pheromones by the California Department of Agriculture in the Bay Area as part of their campaign to fight the spread of the non-native Light Brown Apple Moth.  You can find the newsletter at www.terrafirmafarm.com.

I respect the right of people to protest aerial spraying of an urban population.  What I take issue with is their terminology in describing the material, Checkmate, as toxic and poisonous.  Checkmate is an organically approved material that we use at Terra Firma, and it is almost non-toxic (even salt and soap are toxic at high enough concentrations).  The definition of poisonous is:  "Any substance dangerous to living organisms that if applied internally or externally, destroy the action of vital functions or prevent the CONTINUANCE of life."  Checkmate is not a poison.  It is a pheromone that confuses male moths so that they cannot find females to breed with and reproduce addition generations of moths.

I wanted to post some of the links that I have used to research this issue.  If you read them, you will find that they refute, question, or disprove most or all of the claims that the anti-spray campaign is making about the pheromone spray

There is no scientific connection between the illnesses people reported during the spraying and the materials sprayed.  There is ample medical documentation of this.  Please see the following link:  http://www.oehha.org/risk/pdf/LBAM041008.pdf:

The inert ingredients (ingredients in the product other than the pheromone) in Checkmate were not originally released to the public, but they have been now.  The anti-spray groups continue to claim they are toxic, but apparently the EPA diagrees with them.  "EPA believes use of these pheromone products, including aerial application over residential areas, presents negligible risks to human health and the environment for the following reasons"  Please see this link for more info:  http://www.epa.gov/region09/pesticides/light-brown-moth.html

"Toxic" is a legally defined term, as defined by toxicity standards set by the EPA.  Checkmate has a toxicity of "slight", as does dish soap and other common products.  This is a link to the Pesticide Action Network information about the material.  http://pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Product.jsp?REG_NR=05633600025&DIST_NR=056336

Checkmate and other pheromone sprays are one of the technologies that both organic and conventional farmers are using to reduce the use of truly toxic pesticides such as organophosphates, which harm both humans and wildlife.  Thoughtful people in the Bay Area -- whether they oppose or support CDFA's aerial spraying campaign -- need to recognize the general safety of these technologies and not malign them in order to support their own agendas.

Thanks

Comments

[Sandra Portillo-Robins]

Hi Pablito,
I do agree with you that the pheromone they are planning to spray is pretty harmless compared to a lot of other toxins that are in the air and in our water.
I wanted to know what you know about the capsules the pheromone will be encased in to make it linger in the air. From the research I read it had not been tested for use on spraying over an urban population. How does it react with respiratory tissue? If I remember correctly, it dissolves as urea in the air, but I could not find what it does in the human body. From what I read it was designed to be sprayed over agricultural areas not cities with large populations. I'd like to have more reassurances about that. Thanks.

[Pablito]

Well, it appears that the spraying has been postponed by a judge until more information on these affects is determined.

I myself wonder what other existing products use the micro-encapsulation to extend their effectiveness. I am fairly certain the technology was not invented just for this application.

I am hopeful that a solution can be found that addresses the concerns of urban dwellers in a way that does not pose a threat to the liveliehood of thousands of farmers who are growing food for them in and around the Bay Area.

Thanks!

[Pablito]

Some people appear to be concerned about the microencapsulation of the synthetic pheromone. The purpose of this is to delay the release of the pheromone to reduce the frequency of spraying. Apparently, dozens of household products, including common cosmetics, use this technology. Here's a link to one of the companies that specializes in the technique: http://www.swri.org/4ORG/d01/microenc/microen/default.htm

[Pablito]

Oops, got that number wrong. In the last ten years, over 8000 patents have been issued on individual products that are encapsulated. If this technology is a threat to human health, we've a real problem.

[Sandra]

Thanks for the info. I didn't realize its use is so widespread. There are so many chemicals/products out there that haven't been thoroughly tested it's scary. I guess time will tell or is already telling.