Article Image

Population to be Sprayed with Unregistered Pesticide

Written by Subject: Environment

The people living in the Bay area of California are about to be sprayed with a new pesticide not registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in a pre-emptive strike against a perceived threat from the Light Brown Apple Moth. 

“In August, the California Department of Food and Agriculture plans to spray pesticides in five Bay Area counties for the invasive species” (CBS 5, 2008). One of the chemicals being used is Checkmate, manufactured by Suterra, LLC, which is owned by Stewart Resnick, one of the richest men in California, and owner of the largest farming operation of tree crops in the world. Mr. Resnick is also included in California Governor Schwarzenegger’s top 100 donors. (Arnold Watch, 2008) 

Mr. Resnick has developed and owns a number of successful companies including Paramount Agribusiness, the largest farming operation of tree crops in the world, which includes Paramount Citrus, Paramount Farming and Paramount Farms, growers, processors and marketers of citrus, almonds and pistachios; POM Wonderful, grower of pomegranates and maker of the all-natural POM Wonderful pomegranate juice; Teleflora, the largest floral wire service in the world; FIJI Water, the second largest imported bottled water in the United States and the newest member of the Roll family of companies; The Franklin Mint, a leader in high-quality collectibles; and Suterra, the largest biorational pest control company in the United States. (Political Friendster, 2006)  

The pesticide used to spray Santa Cruz last year was the same product, but without a new active ingredient. The new and improved Checkmate contains two active ingredients. It is this version that will be used on Bay Area residents. The new version of the pesticide contains an active ingredient that has not been approved by the EPA. The picture below shows the original ingredient, (E)-11-tetradecen-1-yl acetate, which was in the original product, and the second ingredient, (E,E)-9,11-tetradecadien-1-yl acetate, which was not, and is the ingredient currently under exemption from EPA registration.  

                                                     

(C&EN, 2007)

Tests have been conducted with the original version of Checkmate, but not on such a large scale.  

It is the second active ingredient, (E,E)-9,11-tetradecadien-1-yl acetate, that is the wild card. The EPA has not approved this new ingredient! In fact, the EPA has granted an exemption just for the Bay Area spraying and waived the public comment period due to the “emergency situation.” The following is taken from the EPA site:  

SUMMARY: EPA has received a quarantine exemption request from the United States Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA/APHIS) to use the pesticide (E,E)-9,11-tetradecadien-1-yl acetate (CAS No. 30562-09-5) to treat host plants to control the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM). The Applicant proposes the use of a new chemical which has not been registered by EPA. Due to the unique nature of this emergency situation, in which the time to review the conditions of this situation was short, it was not possible to issue a solicitation for public comment, in accordance with 40 CFR 166.24, prior to the Agency's decision to grant these exemptions.  

DATES: EPA is waiving the public comment period, as allowed in 40 CFR 166.24, due to the short period of time available with which to review this situation and render a timely decision. However, comments may still be submitted and will be evaluated. (EPA, 2007) 

This exemption is dated July 2007. The spraying is to begin in August 2008, over a year after the exemption was granted. “Because of that exemption, the spraying program isn't subject to state approval, according to representatives of the state Department of Pesticide Regulation” (Kay, 2008).  

Just what is this emergency situation? Some say that it is no emergency at all. According to botanist Daniel Harder, Executive Director of the Arboretum at UC Santa Cruz, "It's not such a nasty pest. You're not going to see a plant succumbing to the Light Brown Apple Moth.” The bug is considered a minor pest in New Zealand, where it arrived from Australia, they say. (Kay, 2008)  

No eradication measures have been taken against the moth in New Zealand, and none are planned. The moth is a minor pest whose larvae are eaten by earwigs, birds, and spiders. Furthermore, “there is no widespread infestation of the light brown apple moth [in the U.S.], but U.S. Department of Agriculture officials say they are trying to head off a potential disaster” (Kay, 2008). Therefore, Bay Area residents will be sprayed with an untested unregulated pesticide on the pretense of this non-existent emergency by Stewart Resnick, owner of the largest farming operation of tree crops in the world, and one of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s top 100 contributors, and are basically told to just shut up and take it. 

Cities to be sprayed are as follows: 

Alameda County:
Albany
Alameda
Piedmont
Emeryville
Oakland

Contra Costa County:
El Cerrito
El Sobrante
Hercules
Kensington
Pinole-N. Richmond
San Pablo

San Francisco County:
San Francisco

San Mateo County:
Daly City
Colma
Pacifica
San Bruno
South San Francisco

Marin County:
Tiburon
Belvedere
San Pablo
Corte Madera
Larkspur
Sausalito
 

Copyright 2008, Barbara H. Peterson 

References: 

Arnold Watch. (2008). Arnold’s Top 100 Donors. Retrieved from: http://www.arnoldwatch.org/special_interests/index.html

C&EN. (2007). Rancor over Pesticide Spraying in California. Retrieved from: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i46/8546news3.html

CBS 5. (2008). Outrage over Planned Bay Area Apple Moth Spraying. Retrieved from: http://cbs5.com/local/apple.moth.spraying.2.662703.html

EPA. (2007). Federal Register Environmental Documents. Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2007/July/Day-06/p12872.htm

Kay, J. (2008). Experts Question Plan to Spray to Fight Moths. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/06/MN69VD309.DTL

Kay, J. (2008). State Plans Bay Area Pesticide Spraying. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from:  http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/15/MN99V2PMN.DTL

Political Friendster. (2006). Rate the Roll International Corporation – Stewart Resnick Connection. Retrieved from: http://www.politicalfriendster.com/rateConnection.php?id1=5223&id2=5220

 

1 Comments in Response to

Comment by Toxic Reverend
Entered on:
Corrupted Science:

Subject:
Re: Central California Population to be Sprayed with Unregistered Pesticide

Concern:

The Health Expert Advisory Committee (HEAC)
for a New Round of Development of Permissible Exposure Limits
for Airborne Contaminants , is**QQ**probably**QQ** based on a faulty and fraudulent
premise of corrupted science.

Concerns: The risk assessment data that was the basis for deciding to spray
pesticides in the San Francisco Bay area. As well as the integrity of the
Biomonitoring Scientific Panel that is to decide which chronic illnesses
will be tested for which toxic chemicals and how they will be tested.

______________________________
___________

This first article that I am citing gives the names of
experts at Universities that have been trying to
expose the problems with spraying this particular
pesticide. After which I give a potentially safe
alternative pesticide and then background information.

Once you connect the dots, it leaves questions, yet to be answered.

Is there or was there any political corruption and or
**QQ**corrupt practices**QQ** between the government agencies
and or officials with the corporation manufacture and
the scientists involved, as well as the toxicology reports
that the corporation has provided ?

**QQ**Where does the money trail lead to and from the
people that will profit from poisoning such a large
population and area**QQ**?

First, we have to establish that there is a problem
with the chemical and that the original toxicology
reports might be **QQ**bogus**QQ** and that such practices
are common in that industry.

Experts question plan to spray to fight moths
Mar 6, 2008 ... PESTICIDE SPRAY PLAN. PR firm**Q**s no-bid deal scrutinized
(3/12) .... This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle ...
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/06/MN69VD309.DTL

There are **QQ**natural pesticides**QQ** that attack enzymes
in the nervous system of insects that people and our
pets do not have. But **QQ**they**QQ** say that the cost is
prohibitive, compared to that of the **QQ**nerve gas**QQ** based
pesticides. The small companies that have the **QQ**natural
based pesticides**QQ** that are not toxic to humans do not
have the financial resources to be heard in the political
arena. And the EcoSmart web page says that their
product costs about the same.
_____________________________________

The right Google search reveals far too many reports.
One example is **QQ**ecosmart natural pesticides**QQ**
Their panel of experts is posted at:
http://www.ecosmart.com/commercial/about/panel.asp

Dr Harlan Feese Ecosmart Technical Director ,
Technical Director (toll-free at 1-877-667-0006
Judy Hight marketing support EcoSMART Customer Service Director ,
toll free at 1-877-667-0006
__
From:
http://www.ecosmart.com/commercial/TechSupport/faqDetail.asp?FAQTypeID=1

Q: Are EcoSMART products more expensive to use when
compared to conventional pesticides?

No, our products are very cost competitive when compared to conventional products. In fact, several of our products are actually more economical than their conventional product counterparts (and just as effective).
http://www.ecosmart.com/commercial/TechSupport/faqDetail.asp?FAQTypeID=1
__________________________________

The simple truth is that numbers do not lie, but liars
can figure. Often misrepresenting the true and total costs
with **QQ**lies of omission**QQ** that enable claims of **QQ**plausible deniability**QQ**
based in claims of ignorance.

The facts are that such wide spread **QQ**nerve gad**QQ** based
pesticide spraying in a community causes health care costs to
skyrocket, as shown with a simple Google search on
**QQ**epidemiology study pesticide spraying health care costs**QQ**.

It should be far more cost effective to use the natural
based pesticides in the **QQ**long run**QQ** in a community because
of the expected absence of health care cost increases. But
to my knowledge there has never been such a comparison
study done.

Epidemiology studies of pesticide spraying with regard to the
psychological effects on a society can be tremendous.

Topic: Google search term:
**QQ**epidemiology study pesticide spraying psychological effects society**QQ**

_________________________

The following is one example of the **QQ**Development of Permissible Exposure Limits**QQ**
But this is not concerning the exact pesticide to be used in the currewnt proposed
plan to spray for the moths. This is a typical example of how this is decided
the typical **QQ**method of operation**QQ** and the **QQ**science**QQ** that such decisions are based
on. After which the **QQ**corrupted science**QQ** that these decisions are based on,
is exposed with verifiable reports of such **QQ**corruption**QQ** being **Q**common place**QQ**
and instances in which it has been exposed. The EPA is still accepting these
**QQ**studies**QQ** that the **QQ**decisions**QQ** are based on and these
**QQ**studies**QQ** are financed by industry, with out any real review !!!
The above link can **QQ**fall out**QQ** when forwarding, so the address I am citing is
http://www.westgard.com/guest16.htm

Example:

The minutes from

First Meeting of the Health Expert Advisory Committee (HEAC)
for a New Round of Development of Permissible Exposure Limits
for Airborne Contaminants in the Workplace
California Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 5155
August 21, 2007

www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/DoshReg/5155ACMinutes082107.doc

Comments at the meeting full of corporate representatives show some

ignorance of the facts concerning the data that they are using for
**QQ**risk assessment**QQ**. They are using **QQ**corrupted science**QQ** as the basic
premise of what is **QQ**safe**QQ**.

_____________________________________

Compare suggestions of the data to use for **QQ**risk assessment**QQ** in
the minutes of that meeting with:

_______________________________

If - then logic:

Now that being true .... one would expect to see the results in the health of
people in a area so sprayed. And there is. Over 100,000 results with many
journals cited are revealed with the Google search term;
**QQ**epidemiology pesticide spraying agricultural geographical area**QQ**.

Evidence of Political Interference in Science
From air pollution to Ground Zero, the A to Z Guide to Political
Interference in Science showcases dozens of examples of the misuse
of science on issues like childhood lead poisoning, toxic mercury
contamination, and endangered species.
From:
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/

My blog
http://toxicreverend.blogspot.com/
documents:

An Organic Food Fight with Nobel Laureates

More than 60 influential scientists, including over 40 Nobel
laureates, are mobilizing scientists and citizens alike to push for
reforms that will protect our health, safety, and environment. They
have posted at their web site :
The Scientific Integrity Program from the Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/

The scientists mobilizing to fight FDA & EPA Corruption

....

The Union of Concerned Scientists released survey results that
demonstrate pervasive and dangerous political influence of
science at the FDA.
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/fda-scientists-pressured.html

....

End of excerpt from my blog.

_____________________________

Reference material for this next section:
http://www.puppstheories.com/ToxicRevelations/donebib.html

Many of the **QQ**tolerable levels of exposure**QQ** to a (singular) toxic chemical have been fraudulently produced for decades.

But it is well documented in the book **QQ**Toxic Deception (81) that they have known this since the 1970**Q**s. In the 1950**Q**s, 1960**Q**s and 1970**Q**s, Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (IBT) performed about 35-40% of all U.S. Toxicology testing. Of the 867 audits of IBT performed by the FDA under the 1962 law, 618 were found to be invalid because of numerous discrepancies between the study conduct and data. FDA flexed its muscles and found four IBT managers guilty of fraud.**QQ** Yet the EPA has still been accepting these **QQ**studies**QQ** that are financed by industry, with out any real review !!! http://www.westgard.com/guest16.htm

Test fraud again made headlines in 1994, when Craven Laboratories was fined over 15 million dollars and its ... Fifty Years of Legislation, by CAROLINE COX (132).
And the plot thickens.

Just reading a published book can show you the reasoning of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF**Q**s) and why they have been burning down newer and toxic buildings. The wide spread use of toxic building materials and the manner in which the testing for the safety of the chemicals were fraudulently produced (81). The book titled **QQ**Toxic Deception**QQ** (81) documents the association of one such toxic chemical and asthma (81) and the fraudulent manner in which toxicology testing has been conducted, over decades. Leaving people to work the majority of their lives in pursuit of their **QQ**dream home**QQ**. And some of the **QQ**dream homes**QQ** are rather toxic and implicated in chronic (toxic) disorders. Only * as mentioned before) most **QQ**patients**QQ** are never tested for such toxic chemicals disorders. And even when they are the very statistics that are used to **QQ**rule out**QQ** or validate such toxic chemical exposures as a root cause of an illness are in question.

Reference material
http://www.puppstheories.com/ToxicRevelations/donebib.html

The above information was copied and pasted from an e-mail that I was using to research and update my information on
California Senate Bill 1378 and the Biomonitoring Program that it
created.

California is going to start testing people for toxic
chemical exposures, with the Biomonitoring Program.

Of the nine member scientific panel that will decide who gets tested for what and how they will be tested:

Five were appointed by **QQ**Arnold Schwarzenegger**QQ**
Two by the Rules Committee

and two by the Speaker of the Assembly

A link to who appointed each one ...

Biomonitoring Program
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/multimedia/biomon/biomon1.html#t2
Members listed with who appointed them at the above page:

Apologies for running short on time to explain all of this. The California Senate Bill 1379 that created this
program was blocked the first five times it was introduced, as other bill numbers. The 5th time, it
was vetoed.

A newspaper story had listed the various lobbyist organization**Q**s
that had been fighting to stop this program and that would be
a probable list to check affiliations for and with the panel. The
edited copy of that story with links to each lobbyist group pasted
in was removed from the net. No copies in the Archive Wayback
Machine. I**Q**ll could try to fwd an e-mail version about them, if you want it.

I gave the papers main web address, so you can check their archives
and or surf into your local library and get a copy from their database.
I did just that and pasted it into an Open Office rtf format document,
attached as Intel1379.rtf

The story was:

State may launch biomonitoring,
By Harrison Sheppard, Sacramento Bureau
LA Daily News, March 30, 2006. .
News article names agencies trying to block the
Biomoneriting bill CA SB 1379
http://www.dailynews.com/

I did just call that reporter and the machine said **QQ**former phone number)
See,s that reporter no longer works there ... not sure.

_____________________________________________________

Concerns: The risk assessment data that was the basis for deciding to spray
pesticides in the San Francisco Bay area. As well as the integrity of the
Biomonitoring Scientific Panel that is to decide which chronic illnesses
will be tested for which toxic chemicals and how they will be tested had a probable basis of corrupted science.

minutes from

First Meeting of the Health Expert Advisory Committee (HEAC)
for a New Round of Development of Permissible Exposure Limits
for Airborne Contaminants in the Workplace
California Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 5155
August 21, 2007

www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/DoshReg/5155ACMinutes082107.doc

Comments at the meeting full of corporate representatives show some

ignorance of the facts.

Compare suggestions of the data to use for **QQ**risk assessment**QQ** with:

_________________________________________

_____________________________

In today**Q**s judicial system,corporate executives receive **QQ**gratuities**QQ**
as do politicians, along with their **QQ**campaign contributions**QQ**.
Some of these **QQ**situations**QQ** are discussed in the posted rough draft of
Red Collar Crime, in the section titled,
The Political Fallout of Criminal Charges Against Corporations:
subtitled: The Failings Of Campaign Financing
http://www.angelfire.com/nm/redcollarcrime/

On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 6:38 AM, Jim t.com wrote:

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Writer-Bio-Page.htm?EdNo=102
Population To Be Sprayed With Unregistered Pesticide
By Barbara Peterson
[... ... ... ]
No eradication measures have been taken against the moth in New Zealand, and
none are planned. The moth is a minor pest whose larvae are eaten by earwigs,
birds, and spiders. Furthermore, **QQ**there is no widespread infestation of the
light brown apple moth [in the U.S.], but U.S. Department of Agriculture
officials say they are trying to head off a potential disaster (Kay, 2008).
Therefore, Bay Area residents will be sprayed with an untested unregulated
pesticide on the pretense of this non-existent emergency by Stewart Resnick,
owner of the largest farming operation of tree crops in the world, and one of
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger**Q**s top 100 contributors, and are basically told to
just shut up and take it.

Yes, as I posted before: This moth does NO agricultural damage. Aside from below
(the more or less **Q**current**Q** list), all of the populated areas of CA will be
sprayed over the next 3~5 years! This crap sickened hundreds of people in Santa
Cruz one~two month/s ago! Totally unnecessary BS abuse of power & greed!!

Jim

Cities to be sprayed are as follows:

Alameda County:
Albany
Alameda
Piedmont
Emeryville
Oakland

Contra Costa County:
El Cerrito
El Sobrante
Hercules
Kensington
Pinole-N. Richmond
San Pablo

San Francisco County:
San Francisco

San Mateo County:
Daly City
Colma
Pacifica
San Bruno
South San Francisco

Marin County:
Tiburon
Belvedere
San Pablo
Corte Madera
Larkspur
Sausalito


Join us on our Social Networks:

 

Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:

Stop Wars T-shirt at The Bitcoin Store