Announcing a new Report from ISIS. The most complete up-to-date summary of the dangers of GM agriculture in 52 pages. Buy Now, or download here
Northern California is in the grip of a horrific aerial spray
programme designed to eradicate an insect pest, Epiphyas postvittana, the light brown apple moth
(LBAM). The LBAM is native to Australia and is also found in New Zealand, Hawaii, and the United Kingdom where it is not considered
a significant pest. However, the California
Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA) have prescribed a $74.5 million pesticide plan using
a synthetic insect sex hormone to eradicate the perceived threat to a number
of plant species thought to be susceptible
to attack by the LBAM. These species may include the Californian cypress,
oak and redwood trees, as well as ornamental and nursery plants; and a broad
range of citrus, grapes, and deciduous fruit tree crops.
Botanist
Daniel Harder, the executive Director of the Arboretum at UC Santa Cruz, visited New Zealand in 2007 to study the behaviour
of the LBAM where its presence does not cause economically significant crop
damage, or had a detrimental effect on native flora. His research has led
him to conclude that, “It is not such a nasty pest. You’re not going to see
a plant succumbing to the LBAM.” Furthermore, he says that there is no reason
to believe that this moth will be any more of a problem in California than any other moth from
the Torticidae family. He is confident that earwigs, birds and spiders will
eat the moth and its larvae and prevent the devastation envisaged by agricultural
officials, and rejects the expensive, unnecessary
spraying of a dozen urban communities in the coast and bay areas. Jim Carey,
a UC Davis entomology professor, says that the pesticide plan won’t work because
the LBAM has been in California for at least thirty, if not fifty years, or more, and that
the money would be better spent trying to contain the spread of the LBAM rather
than eradicate it altogether. UC Berkeley associate Professor of Agro-ecology
Miguel Altieri agrees, and says that the
fact that the moth is here doesn’t mean devastation.
Aerial pesticides sprayed over urban communities
A pheromone
is a natural scent that an insect produces in very
small quantities to communicate with a potential mate. In the case of the aerial spray, the pheromone works
by confusing the male moth, which disrupts the mating cycle, thereby decreasing
or eradicating the pest population. Several rounds of
aerial spraying with ‘CheckMate LBAM-F’,
and ‘CheckMate OLR-F’, have already blanketed Monterey and Santa
Cruz counties
in September through to November 2007 with the insect pheromone, and further
sprays planned for June 2008 have been temporarily
halted by the courts until after 17
August 2008
when test results from the spray formula are expected. The counties of Alameda, Albany, Contra Costa, Marin,
Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, Solano, and Oakland are fresh targets for
the summer aerial spraying campaign in 2008. The CDFA and USDA have
identified the LBAM as a Class ‘A’ pest to obtain an “emergency exemption”
from the California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and both claim
that synthetic pheromones are not toxic to humans or to the environment.
However, a report from a Task Force set up by the city of Albany, California has provided evidence
to the contrary. The report states that, “Following
the spraying in Monterey and Santa Cruz in 2007, there were more than 600 reports of health problems,
including asthma-like attacks and difficulty breathing, chest pains, headaches,
blurred vision, swollen glands, skins rashes, and feelings of chronic fatigue.”
The symptoms reported by Monterey and Santa Cruz residents are consistent with
the known health effects of several of the ten ingredients found in the pheromone
formula. Matthew Sluder of the Sustainable Health Institute [6] recently outlined
his concerns to the Marin Country Agricultural officer and to the Integrated
Pest Management Commission of two of CheckMate’s published ingredients:
Butylated
hydroxytoluene is mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells, also for bacteria
and/or yeast. Repeated or prolonged exposure can produce organ damage and
may be toxic to blood, central nervous system (CNS) and liver.
2-hydroxy-4-n-octyloxybenzophenone
is a xenochemical that binds to estrogen receptors in humans and animals.
Even small doses will signal specific biological action
in the body.
Prolonged disruption the endocrine system is a cause of breast cancer.
CheckMate OLR-F® also contains (E)-11-tetradecen-1-yl acetate and (Z)-11- tetradecen-1-yl
acetate as the active ingredients (A.I.s); while CheckMate LBAM-F® and DISRUPT
Micro-Flake®, contain in addition to (E)-11-tetradecen-1-yl acetate and (Z)-11-
tetradecen-1-yl acetate, (E, E)-9,11- tetradecadien-1-yl acetate. All formulations
include the ‘inert’ ingredients, Polymethylene Polyphenyl Isocyanate (PPI),
Tricapryl Methyl Ammonium Chloride and 1, 2-benzisothiazolin-3-one. The EPA’s
claim that these chemicals are inert fails to disclose the fact that these substances
are toxic. Inert ingeredients are chemical formulations that accompany the
main chemicals responsible for eradicating the pest, in this case the pheromones.
Registration of the synthetic pheromones themselves seems to be a dangerously
cursory process, in which data relating to toxicity, mutagenicity, allergenicity
or teratogenicity may be waived if the substance is a member of a well characterized
chemical group in the major OECD countries including the United States. In general,
the registration of the synthetic pheromones seems to be slipshod and inadequate.
A recent study on CheckMate LBAM-F® by the Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory at
UC confirms the danger of aerial application particularly from the ‘inert’ microcapsules
ranging in size from approximately 10 microns to 190 microns. According to
the American Lung Association (ALA) microcapsules in the region of 10 microns
come under the category of ‘Particle Pollution’ defined by the ALA as a combination
of fine solids and aerosols that are suspended in the air we breathe and are
small enough to lodge deep in the lungs where they can do serious damage. Particle
Pollution is well documented for its adverse effects on short and long term
health, including the increased severity of asthma attacks in children, damage
to the small airways of the lungs and dying from lung cancer, respiratory and
cardiovascular causes. Children and the elderly are most at risk from these
ingredients.
Severe reactions ignored
One
eleven month old infant called Jack had such a severe reaction after
the first aerial spraying in Monterey that his father Air Force Major
Tim Wilcox called a military doctor. The boy was hospitalized on three occasions
and stopped breathing on one occasion. The previously healthy child spent
his first birthday on medication and oxygen and is now permanently on medication.
Major Wilcox’s letters and complaints to the state about the possible bad
reaction to the spraying were ignored. CDFA spokesman Steve Lyle
said his agency had received 330 complaints of spray-related illness but he
downplayed the news, insisting that “the agencies with the jurisdiction to
review the product have told us it’s safe to use.... and the CheckMate products
were unlikely the cause of the illnesses reported.” California’s Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger supports the urban spraying liquid and backs the CDFA’s
position on the spray being safe.
California State’s official emergency exemption
under Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act has
allowed CheckMate LBAM-F, and CheckMate OLR-F to bypass the normal vetting processes
to assess safety under California law. This effectively allows a substance that
has not been thoroughly tested to be used in urban areas, and despite the manufacturer
Suterra LLC of Bend, Oregan admission that “long term studies on the active
ingredients have not been done”. Further aerial onslaughts of the LBAM are
to be coupled with “complementary techniques” such as ground treatments and
foliar sprays of Bacillus thuringiensis (bt), a bacterium known to have
adverse health effects on human and animal populations (see More
Illnesses Linked to Bt Crops. It also infects open sores or abrasions of
people with weak immune systems from age, HIV infection, or from treatment for
autoimmune diseases. Spinosad is a natural insecticide obtained from bacteria
(synthetic Spinosad derivatives are also available) that is to be applied to
areas of LBAM infestation. Even though Spinosad is approved for organic production,
laboratory experiments showed that it was harmful to honeybees and bumblebees.
Later experiments showed that dried residues of the natural insecticide are
not harmful to bees. But as the bees are already stressed and threatened by
colony collapse disorder (CCD) see Saving the Honeybee
Through Organic Farming it is advisable to apply the natural insecticide,
if at all, only at night when bees are not foraging.
Elephants are white mice
In modern
toxicology the adverse effects of pesticides is evaluated by exposing test
animals and carefully evaluating the impact of the pesticide. Most testing
is done with either rats or mice. In the
case of the Lepidopteran (moth) pheromones, there is clear evidence that pheromones
similar if not identical to those delivered from the air in California are active in inducing
aggression and sexual arousal in the African elephant. The female elephant
excretes the pheromone in her urine and the smell of that urine arouses male
elephants. The elephants should be regarded as the white mice,
as their response is relevant, not only to elephants that might be in the Bay Area but a large array of
mammals including humans. Male sexual aggression should be considered a marker
and evaluated from police records in the communities sprayed with insect pheromone
from the air.
Both vertebrate and invertebrate animals are influenced by pheromones similar
to those sprayed in California. Higher primates and humans have retained many
of the genes specifying pheromone receptors of ‘lower’ vertebrates as inactive
pseudo-genes, though humans have retained active pheromone receptor genes as
well. The safety of a synthetic cockroach sex pheromone was questioned when
it was found to be toxic to human cells. It would be prudent to presume all
synthetic pheromones toxic to humans until fully evaluated for toxicity and
unintended behaviour modification. Olfaction and pheromones are well documented
to be a part of human behaviour.
According to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) US
EPA states that “Based on low toxicity in animal testing, and expected low exposures
to humans, no risk to human health is expected from the use of these pheromones.
During more than 10 years of use of lepidopteran pheromones, no adverse effects
have been reported. The safety record for lepidopteran pheromones has allowed
the Agency to conclude that consumption of food containing residues of the pheromones
presents no risk. ... Adverse effects on non target organisms (mammals, birds,
and aquatic organisms) are not expected because these pheromones are released
in very small amounts to the environment and act on a select group of insects.”
For that reason little motoring of non-target effects was undertaken even though
the toxicity of the pheromone to invertebrate organisms and fish was noted by
CDPR. The ‘inert ingredients’, were of no toxicological concern according to
CDPR. However, had they examined the actual; ‘inert’ ingredients’ they would
have observed that more than on such ingredient posed a risk to human health.
Sex hormone makes manufacturer millions
The “organic
biopesticides” market is specifically designed to target organic farmers in
the US and Canada who can use Bt and pheromones on the premise that it is based
on natural substances without losing their organic status. The biopesticides
market is currently a small fraction of the overall $30 billion pesticides
industry. By 2010, it is estimated to be
worth $1 billion. It is also estimated that
each aerial spray of CheckMate LBAM-F and CheckMate OLR-F® is worth $3 million paid
directly to the manufacturer Suterra LLC. Initially the US EPA did not approve biopesticide
use, but they appear to have slipped through the regulatory net along with
GM crops. Health Canada, the federal department responsible for helping Canadians
maintain and improve their health has approved the aerial spraying of a
Bt formula Foray 48b to control the Gipsy Moth (Lymantria dispar). The manufacturer Valent
BioSciences’ material safety data sheet [29]
states that the “inert ingredients – identity withheld as a Trade Secret”
are not known to be absorbed by the skin, or cause inhalation or ingestion
problems. The same sheet warns that Foray 48b could possibly irritate target
organs, skin, eyes and respiratory tract and goggles and overalls should be used when
in contact with it.
In West Auckland, New Zealand, an urban population was subject to aerial spray of Bt Foray 48b
for moth eradication during cycles of 2-3 weeks for over 2 years. This was
part of multimillion dollar aerial spray campaign between 1996 and 2004 in
New Zealand. A ‘People’s Inquiry’ set up by those whose health was adversely
affected by the spray has received support from the independent Ombudsman.
There is major concern for the welfare not just of humans and animals, not
just for bees, but also for butterflies, and particularly bats, all which are
major pollinators of food crops and natural insect predators. Bats are now under
significant threat from pesticides.
Organic farmers told chemical treatment safe
Ground treatments
with Bt, and Spinosad may be utilized in
conjunction with aerial pheromone spraying in areas in California where moth larvae have
been detected. Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) kills insects by forming a protein crystal that the bugs ingest.
The proteins rip through the innards of insects that go through a worm stage,
said Olav Messerschmidt, executive director of the Biopesticide Industry Alliance.
The formulations of these products are
approved for use on organic crops in the USA, Canada and elsewhere. This has encouraged use by organic
farmers and growers in California, who are also told
by the National
Organic Program (NOP) that they support the combined synthetic pheromone and
bt treatment. However, it transpires that the California Certified Organic
Farmers (CCOF) has not researched or read, or been provided with any information
on CheckMate other than from the NOP or the
CDFA. Peggy Miers, the Executive Director of the CCOF said “We are not a health
organization and we are not an environment organization, our mission is organic
and other organizations will address the health aspects… and environmental
aspects. Our needs are to address the needs of our members and the organic
marketplace.”
Most opponents of aerial spraying hesitate to question the safety of the pheromones,
yet they agree that the additives to the spray mixture (above) are well known
to cause the kinds of symptoms observed in Monterey and Santa Cruz. The Californian
Alliance to Stop the Spray (CASS) and the Environment and Human Rights Advisory
highlight twenty three human rights violations of internationally accepted codes
of ethics by the enforced spraying programme that may incur liabilities for
the CDPR.
CDPR assurances unreliable - synthetic pheromones lack adequate study
It appears
that the CDPR has not been entirely honest in expressing their opinion of
the aerial spray mixture. They seem to have neglected
the well documented toxicity of some spray additives.
This has resulted in the
reluctance to fully evaluate the impact of the aerial spray on a very large
population exposed to the spray. The evidence on the toxicity of the
spray additives was clear while the toxicity of the synthetic pheromones is
not yet thoroughly studied. There is a growing body of evidence indicating that the
synthetic insect pheromones may also be active in mammals and probably in humans. In the fullness of time, it is likely that the
synthetic insect hormones will be seen to have behavioural
and cellular impacts on vertebrates and humans.
Presently, these impacts have been documented in a few cases, but the field is advancing
rapidly. Meanwhile, bureaucrats are using
the absence of evidence as evidence of the absence of
harm.
