Comprehensive reference in the form of brief summary statements plus reference links for upcoming aerial spray of pesticide in many regions of California for the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM)
This site will be removed. Please go to BigAgBigChem.org for most recent version of below documentMain topic headings in order are:
1)Background and Government declared Reasons for Spray, funding, schedule and spray regions.
2) How the average healthy adult with no extra sensitivities to the spray components will likely experience the LBAM aerial spray
3) Toxicology of Checkmate (pesticide used in LBAM aerial spraying)
4) Health reports - Human, Animal and Environmental damage related to the Fall 2007 Spraying of Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties
5) Impact of Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) on California Agriculture and current eradication evaluation.
6) Connections between USDA decision to eradicate LBAM and international trade issues
7) Political/Monetary Reasons for Spray
8) Economic Impact on Regions subject to Aerial Spray
Background and Government declared Reasons for Spray, funding, schedule and spray regions
In Fall 2007, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) ordered the spraying of aerial pesticides, specifically Checkmate OLR-F and Checkmate LBAM-F, in Santa Cruz and Monterey counties, to eradicate the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM). The aerial spraying of Checkmate OLR-F in Santa Cruz and Monterey counties was completed in November 2007, and was the first time this chemical composition had been sprayed on an urban population.
The CDFA has now ordered the aerial spraying of the Greater San Francisco Bay Area, as well as the continued spraying of the Monterey Bay Area. The expanded aerial spray zone is currently defined as the counties and cities within Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin, Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. The aerial spraying could be extended to additional counties and cities if the CDFA finds the moth in other California regions.
The spraying was scheduled to begin again on June 1, 2008 in the Monterey region and move north into the San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley region by no later than August 1, 2008. If the CDFA uses the same procedure as they used in Santa Cruz and Monterey counties in 2007, then low flying planes would be slated to spray at minimum every thirty (30) days for 9 months a year. The CDFA has stated that the spraying is likely to occur for 9 months over at least a three-to-five (3-5) year period, and could extend indefinitely, depending upon the results of the spraying.
There is currently a temporary injunction for the Santa Cruz region restraining the CDFA from aerial spraying. CDFA has asked for a fast track appeal of this injunction. In April the Governor’s office contracted a Texas firm due to short-term safety tests on the pesticide.
First identified in California on March 22, 2007 by Jerry Powell is a moth taxonomist retired from UC Berkeley
http://news.ucanr.org/newsstorymain.cfm?story=990
Moth initial discovery and USDA's and CDFA's reaction
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-03-11/article/29430
Recommendations of the Technical Working Group for the Light Brown Apple Moth Infestation in California 8 June 2007
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/lba_moth/downloads/twg-recommendations.pdf
USDA ANNOUNCES NEARLY $75 MILLION IN ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR LIGHT BROWN APPLE MOTH ERADICATION WASHINGTON, Jan. 24, 2008 on top of the $15 million funded in August 2007 ; Total of $90 Million so far.
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2008/01/0019.xml
USDA document justifying continuing aerial spray -- also has map of predicted spread range in US of LBAM
Treatment Program for Light Brown Apple Moth in California Environmental Assessment
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ea/downloads/lbam-treatmentprog-02-14-08.pdf
USDA document justifying spray
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/lba_moth/downloads/lbam-natlsurveyguidelines.pdf
LBAM 101 The Light Brown Apple Moth and its environment and patterns
http://www.lbamspray.com/Reports/Light%20Brown%20Apple%20Moth.pdf
Map of spray zones -- click-on image to magify
http://www.lbamspray.com/00_Images/2008LBAM_BA_PLAN_08.jpg
Total Area to be Aerial Sprayed at least 700 square miles before updated map of 2008 which may increase area.
http://www.lbamspray.com/2008aerialsprayzones.htm
Judge, Schwarzenegger Stop Apple Moth Spraying until August 2008
http://cbs5.com/wrapper_consumer/seenon/apple.moth.spraying.2.708193.html
The average healthy adult with no extra sensitivities to the spray components will likely experience the LBAM aerial spray as follows:
The below is based on the reports of Santa Cruz and Monterey Regions residents, who experienced a very reduced amount of exposure in 2007 to the aerial spray, as compared to what is scheduled in 2008 and beyond for a much greater region.
The current schedule calls for spraying at least once a month for 9 months for up to 5 years. The spray has a 30 to 70 days time release formulation.
Low flying planes (500 feet) that are extremely loud and seem to fly relentlessly from 8 pm to 5 am, disturbing and/or preventing sleep. When residents go outside after the spray is completed most experience a slight sore throat, some eye irritation and nasal irritation. Some experience these symptoms in their house. Capacity to work the next day is reduced due to sleep interruption and diminished health.
Local business was reduced in the area for numerous businesses, probably due to residents avoiding the outdoors due to the lingering effects of the spray.
The state warns people to stay inside when the spray happens, and to bring children’s toys inside or at least hose them off, once it’s finished. Getting out of town is not really an option, since the spray consists of plastic micro-capsules that time-release the spray over weeks. It’s not labeled for use in populated areas.
Most residents noticed the bees and birds completely vanished after the spray from their neighbors. Many returned weeks later, but seemingly in reduced numbers.
See Health report section for adverse reactions.
Toxicology of Checkmate (pesticide used in LBAM aerial spraying)
"Immediate short term acute health concerns are to be expected from the known toxicology of several of the chemicals in the Checkmate formulation mix and in the polyurea plastic particulate capsule." -Lawrence Rose M.D., M.P.H., former Senior Public Medical Officer for Cal-OSHA and part of the UCSF Occupational/Environmental Medicine Department
Checkmate OLR-F and Checkmate LBAM-F warning labels on pesticide.
http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2007/10/366799.png
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/lba_moth/downloads/CheckMate%20LBAM.pdf
EPA emergency exemption for Checkmate use only in Calfornia.
http://www.chemtrails911.com/docs/-%202007/00_LBAM/EPA%20Region%209%20Pesticides%20Program%20--%20State%20Program%20Contacts.htm
List of chemicals in Checkmate LBAM-F and there use and adverse reactions in humans.
Crosslinked polyurea polymer MSDS for Urea: http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/u4725.htm
Although urea may be manufactured by the human body, the amount used in the spray is not safe. The Material Safety Data Sheet for urea lists the following potential health effects.
"Inhalation: Causes irritation to the respiratory tract. Symptoms may include coughing, shortness of breath. May be absorbed into the bloodstream with symptoms similar to ingestion.
"Ingestion: Causes irritation to the gastrointestinal tract. Symptoms may include nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. May also cause headache, confusion and electrolyte depletion.
"Skin Contact: Causes irritation to skin. Symptoms include redness, itching, and pain.
"Eye Contact: Causes irritation, redness, and pain.
"Chronic Exposure: A study of 67 workers in an environment with high airborne concentrations of urea found a high incidence of protein metabolism disturbances, moderate emphysema, and chronic weight loss.
"Aggravation of Pre-existing Conditions: Supersensitive individuals with skin or eye problems, kidney impairment or asthmatic condition should have physician's approval before exposure to urea dust."
Butylated Hydroxytoluene a.k.a. BHT a.k.a DBPC a.k.a. 2,6-di-tert-butyl-p-cresol
MSDS http://www.lbamspray.com/00_Health/2007/Butylated_hydroxytoluene%20MSDS-.pdf
also http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/DI/2,6-di-t-butyl-p-cresol.html (MSDS Oxford University)
The compound (a preservative) has been banned for use in food in Japan (1958), Romania, Sweden, and Australia. The US has barred it from infant foods. It is well know that infants will be both breath and ingest this chemical during the aerial spray.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butylated_hydroxytoluene (general chemistry and synonyms)
Polyvinyl Alcohol MSDS for: http://www.lbamspray.com/00_Health/2007/POLYVINYL%20ALCOHOL%20MSDS.htm
Has film forming, emulsifying, and adhesive properties. It is also resistant to oil, grease and solvent.
Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation.
Chronic Potential Health Effects: Inhalation or ingestion for prolonged period of time may affect blood and metabolism, and behavior.
Tricaprylyl Methyl Ammonium Chloride a.k.a. (Aliquat 336) http://www.lbamspray.com/00_Health/2007/Tricaprylylmethylammonium%20chloride%20msds.pdf
A low-foaming surfactant that keeps polymer beads from sticking together and allows other compounds to dissolve in water. May have some level of antimicrobial properties, which can favor the spread of immune bacteria. In large amounts, surfactants can change the surface tension of water—possibly affecting zooplankton, particularly in shallow waters or along shorelines. Even at modest levels, surfactants can significantly impact amphibians such as frogs.
Sodium Phosphate MSDS for: http://www.lbamspray.com/00_Health/2007/Sodium%20Phosphate,%2019542,%20MSDS.htm
Sodium phosphates are added to many foods as an emulsifier to prevent oil separation.
Irritant due to its acidic nature. May cause inflammation and pain on prolonged contact, especially with moist skin.
Chronic Exposure: May sequester calcium and cause calcium phosphate deposits in the kidneys.
Ammonium Phosphate http://www.lbamspray.com/00_Health/2007/AMMONIUM%20PHOSPHATE%20MONOBASIC%20msds.htm
Ammonium phosphate is used as an ingredient in some fertilizers as a high source of elemental nitrogen.
Causes irritation to the respiratory tract. Symptoms may include coughing, shortness of breath.
1,2-benzisothiozoli-3-one MSDS for: http://www.lbamspray.com/00_Health/2007/bensisothiazol_MSDS_SIGMA-ALDRICH.pdf
A low molecular weight aromatic ketone which is used as a microbicidal in the production of detergents.
This compound is known to be an eye and skin irritant and has been reported to cause skin sensitization.
Occupational asthma and rhinitis caused by 1.,2 benzisothiazolin-3-one in a chemical worker
http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/47/4/249.pdf
2-hydroxy-4-n-octyloxybenzophenone MSDS for: http://www.lbamspray.com/00_Health/2007/2-HYDROXY%20MSDS.pdf
Normally used in sunscreen not met to be breathed; endocrine disrupter which attaches itself to estrogen receptors:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCP-4FJTP0T-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=89d462d4edef9b6dba17d25fdac7795f
(E)-11-Tetradecen-1-yl Acetate and (E,E) -9,11 Tetradecadien-1-yl Acetate these are the Moth pheromones or “active ingedents” in the pesticide. Almost no toxological data is available on these particular pheromones (which attempt disrupt mating in target LBAM).
Some information on toxicology of these chemical can be gathered on the following sites:
California Department of Pesticide Regulation - Environmental Monitoring Branch for LBAM
http://www.panna.org/documents/dprPheromone20070828.pdf
Lepidopteran Pheromones Fact Sheet EPA
http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/ingredients/factsheets/factsheet_lep_pheromones.htm
Analysis of Toxicology Studies with LBAM and related Lepidopteran Pheromones Richard B. Philp, D.V.M., Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology, The University of Western Ontario
http://www.panna.org/documents/lbamAnalysisOfToxicologyStudies2007.pdf
On the Apparent Persistence of Disparlure ( gypsy moth pheromone) in the Human Body
Professor E. ALAN CAMERON
Shows that exposure to an insect pheromone contaminate the human body for many years. In this researchers experience he was last exposed in 1977 and still attracting moths in 1993.
Link to his 1994 paper
End of Chemical List and separate information about each chemical
Other Website page detailing chemical composition and health effects of Checkmate
http://www.hopefortruth.com/checkmate_lbam.htm
Lawrence Rose M.D., M.P.H., former Senior Public Medical Officer for Cal-OSHA
and part of the UCSF Occupational/Environmental Medicine Department
Marin Pesticide Spraying Health Hazard Alert:
http://lbamspray.com/Reports/Health%20Hazard%20Alert%20by%20Dr.%20Larry%20Rose%20MD%20MPH.pdf
Declaration of Richard Philp, Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
http://www.hopefortruth.com/LBAM_Forms/Toxicology_report.pdf
Information about Checkmate’s particle size and composition
From: Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory the University of California, Davis
http://lbamspray.com/00_Documents/2007/ATL_Pheromone_Toxicity_Testing_112807.pdf
Checkmate® LBAM-F when it pools up like after rain the high pheromone concentrations can cause 100 % mortality in the tested aquatic life.
American Lung Association information on lung damage and particle size
http://lungaction.org/reports/sota05_heffects.html#pp
Dr. Dennis Knepp, PhD, and Dr. Jeff Haferman. PhD, review data provided by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and find errors in regard to the article size of CheckMate, the pesticide used in fall 2007. This letter and the accompanying analysis show that the micro-capsules in CheckMate constitute a health hazard which should have been investigated prior to spraying.
The CDFA states in their analysis that only 1.2% of the particles in the Checkmate spray were smaller than 10 microns, which is a critical size for inhalation to deep within the lungs. They based their computations on particle volume, not number of particles, which is simply incorrect, Haferman stated. Knepp explained that when the analysis is corrected we find the average particle size to be about 17 microns with significant numbers of much smaller particles. The scientists cited research that shows the expected mass concentration of the Checkmate spray could cause an increase in mortality rates by 7 per cent.
http://forum.stopthespray.org/download/file.php?id=216&sid=f012f9ca45addfc03cf5606e1278da9e
http://www.pdsonoma.org/article/scientists-spotlight-error-in-agency-analysis-of-lbam-spray
In an CDFA presentation in Marin County in February 2008 OEHHA toxicologist Dr. Anna Fan said that some particles in the aerial spray may circulate in the air for up to 12 months.
Brief statements about health effects for aerial spray from:
Dennis Knepp, PhD, Larry Rose MD Retired Senior Public Medical Officer for Cal-OSHA, Dr. Elisa Song, Pediatrician, SF Bay Area, Dr. Russell Blaylock, M.D., Neurosurgeon, Author
http://www.veganreader.com/2008/04/26/lbam-spray-doctors-accuse-state-of-experimentation-fatal-damage/
Upcoming Six-Pack tests on Checkmate pesticide probably not be adequate.
http://cbs5.com/investigates/moth.spraying.tests.2.714111.html
William Rothman MD re: the "six pack" toxicology tests that the governor said are being done on the new pesticide formulations.
Rothman letter on Six Pack testing limits
The reported size of the microcapsule to be used in Checkmate Aerial spray is 10 to 190 microns. The American Lung Association states that particles measuring 10 microns in diameter are small enough to lodge deep in the lungs where they can do serious damage. Several of the ingredients are known to have toxic properties and could easily cause inflammation of lung tissue in young, healthy adults - not to mention children, seniors and those who are already physically impaired.
On April 1, 2008, Secretary of Agriculture Kawamura at the City at Alameda council chambers under questioning said that if Checkmate was being aerially applied over a agriculture field, the field workers would be required to leave the fields during spraying due to the “caution” requirements and liability issues associated with the Checkmate (recorded testimony).
Health reports -- Human, Animal and Environmental damage related to the Fall 2007 Spraying of Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties
Executive Summary Report of 643 complaints of adverse reaction to aerial spraying in Santa Cruz and Monterey counties
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2008/01/05/executive_summary_mike_lynberg.pdf
Full report of 643 complaints of adverse reaction to aerial spraying (192 pages - 8 mega bytes)
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2008/01/05/spraycompl2.pdf
Forum posting on Monterey and Santa Cruz sprayings
“…At least four of them required hospitalization, including a 12-month old boy whose parents had to rush him to the emergency room after his condition grew progressively worse the week of the spraying. He got to the point where he couldn’t breathe on his own and was in the hospital for three days. Two weeks later, he had a relapse and was rushed to the hospital again. He has now been diagnosed with asthma, a condition he did not have before the spraying began...”
http://forums.myspace.com/t/3820183.aspx?fuseaction=forums.viewthread
Brief statements about health effects for aerial spray from:
Dennis Knepp, PhD, Larry Rose MD Retired Senior Public Medical Officer for Cal-OSHA, Dr. Elisa Song, Pediatrician, SF Bay Area, Dr. Russell Blaylock, M.D., Neurosurgeon, Author
http://www.veganreader.com/2008/04/26/lbam-spray-doctors-accuse-state-of-experimentation-fatal-damage/
Major Tim Wilcox speaking about his child’s near death due to the LBAM spray
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxXFZkVd0To
Adverse impact on the bird populations (Sea bird die-off) (11 page report)
http://www.lbamspray.com/Reports/LBAM%20Fact%20Sheet%20Bird%20Die-off.pdf
Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) Eradication Program: Potential Effects on Pollinators and Implications for California Agriculture
http://www.lbamspray.com/Reports/Bees.pdf
Potentially Affected Non-Target Species / California LBAM Eradication Plan 10-06-07
http://www.lbamspray.com/00_Documents/2008/PheromoneSearch.pdf
Adverse events for Animals and Pets due to CDFA and USDA Eraducation actions 5-08 pdf file 6.7 Meg Bytes
When you think of Santa Cruz, surfers may be one of the first images that comes to mind. Few people know the beaches around Monterey Bay like the men and women who have been surfing it - many for 40+ years.
Following the illegal and horrific aerial spraying around the Monterey Bay Area, the worst red tide in recent, remembered history appeared along the beaches and lasted for some 30-60 days. (article and video at link)
http://www.veganreader.com/2008/03/13/lbam-spray-assaults-marine-life-as-well-as-humans/
Press release by California Office of Health Hazard Assessment, timed to be release just before an important assembly Ag. committee hearing bills about the aerial spray
http://www.oehha.org/risk/pdf/LBAM041008press.pdf
Response by doctors and spray victims to above press release
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/103723.php
Impact of Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) on California Agriculture and current eradication evaluation.
The has been repeated testimony from Professors of Entomology that the eradication effort will not work, including Professor James Carey of University of California at Davis, Professor Miguel Altieri of University of California at Berkeley and retired USDA pheromones scientist Derrell Chambers PH.d.
Testimony of Entomologist, Professor James R. Carey
James R. Carey, Professor of Entomology at the University of California, Davis, testified to the likelihood that CDFA's effort to eliminate the Light Brown Apple Month will be a failure and that crop damage using the normal natural predators would be limited. He also testified to the fact that the CDFA’s effort will likely be counterproductive (expensive and more harmful than the natural course of the moth). Professor Carey’s testimony before State Senators Simitian and Migden in Marin County on March 13, 2008 demonstrated a LBAM spread model that strongly indicates that CDFA trapping data and LBAM spread models are likely flawed.
http://www.albanyca.org/archiPage 3 of 4ve/pdf/012208_E_CareyTestimony.pdf
http://Democrats.assembly.ca.gov/MEMBERS/A27/pdf/AssemblyAg_Committee_LBAM2
"I have talked to eight different UC entomologists about the LBAM problem. Some of these are highly statured scientists within the UC System. Not one of these entomologists believes that the light brown apple moth can be eradicated." - James Carey, entomologist at UC Davis with specialties in invasion biology, insect demography, and population dynamics. 3/12/08
Since Professor Carey’s testimony the principal CDFA LBAM Entomologist Robert Dowell PH.d has said that CDFA’s 2005 trapping data probably produced an erroneous LBAM spread model and LBAM has probably been in California much longer than CDFA originally thought. May 3, 2008 UC Berkeley Botanic Garden.
Video of testimony of Professor Carey and Harder PH.D before Senator Simitian committee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zc7I_o0M6E&feature=related (15 minutes total)
Derrell Chambers PH.d retired pheromone research scientist with the USDA testifying that eradication will probably not work.
http://forum.stopthespray.org/download/file.php?id=237&sid=bea4db2e757d623bfce3e46bd0c59b98
Statements by Daniel Harder, Ph.D., UC Santa Cruz Arboretum Director
Exaggeration of threat of LBAM
Existence of LBAM in New Zealand for over 100 years with only minor crop damage
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_8559269
http://www.hopefortruth.com/LBAM_Forms/Harder_Report.pdf
Report on Daniel Harder’s trip to New Zealand and control of LBAM with natural predators and Dr. Carey's statement that the LBAM has probably been in California for decades.
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-03-11/article/29430
IPM Practices for the LBAM in NZ: Implications for California: -Harder/Rosendale, March 08 2008
http://forum.stopthespray.org/download/file.php?id=114
Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) Eradication Program: Potential Effects on Pollinators and Implications for California Agriculture
http://www.lbamspray.com/Reports/Bees.pdf
CDFA LBAM trapping reports
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/PDEP/lbam/situationreports.html
CCOF, one of the oldest and largest organic certification organizations in North America; opposition to aerial spray.
http://www.ccof.org/pr08-03-11LBAM.php
Connections between USDA decision to eradicate LBAM and international trade issues:
The US has engaged in protectionist activities by using the LBAM to prevent agricultural shipments from other countries, thereby promoting American produce. Now other countries are using the small LBAM USA infestation to their advantage. The European Union does not block fruit or vegetable shipments due to LBAM infestation.
http://www.register-pajaronian.com/V2_news_articles.php?heading=0&page=&story_id=3655
“…As has been researched and indicated by premier UC scientists, the class A classification of the LBAM as a pest is not only disputable, it is incorrect. Mexico and Canada only have their ludicrous import restrictions in place because of US Policy. If we change ours, they'll change theirs.”
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/ca/TPPH45FSK9CKTGTKR
See last page of attachment – in the past Mexico has waited for the US to take the lead in modifying the threat conditions to allow “harmonization” of trade policies.)
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pdep/lbam/pdfs/PSA12_2007.pdf (
CDFA claims to have eradicated LBAM in LA and Napa counties without aerial spraying and Mexico has lifted moratorium from those counties. Also Mexico has modified the trapping requirements at the CDFA request.
http://westernfarmpress.com/news/lbam-protocol-0326/
Invasive Species Management: Programs, Policies, and Institutions for Preventing and Managing Invasive Agricultural Pests: Supporting Tables (including trade treaty related information)
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/InvasiveSpecies/supportedtables.htm
Winegrape Growers reaction and view of LBAM
http://www.lodiwine.com/LBAM_version_2.pdf
Political/Monetary Reasons for Spray
On January 24th, 2008, United States Department of (USDA) Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner announced the availability of $74.5 million in emergency funding to combat the light brown apple moth (LBAM) infestation in California. This announcement comes in conjunction with the release of the California Department of Agriculture's (CDFA) expanded aerial spray zone, which includes the entire cities of San Francisco, Oakland, Berkley and many others.
Plus $15 milion from August 2007 funding for a total of $90 million so far.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_10711.cfm
Contractor, Dynamic Aviation Group Inc Bridgewater, VA, Air Transport, contributed exclusively to Republican candidates, the Republican Party and Republican PACS in 2007.
http://vpap.org/donors/results_level2.cfm?Key=ORP000226214
STEWART A. RESNICK - Chairman & President: Roll International Corp. (a major California agri-business),
and Suterra LLC, maker of Checkmate pesticide used for aerial spraying in California, contributed a $144,600 to California Governor Schwarzenegger.
http://www.arnoldwatch.org/special_interests/index.html
Also see http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/08/BAF1VG26A.DTL
"...each aerial application of Checkmate OLR-F and Checkmate LBAM-F costs approximately $3.5 million and that $3 million is paid directly to the manufacturer Suterra, LLC of Bend, Oregon.
http://nationalexpositor.com/News/870.html
A $497,000 Public Relations contract was awarded in November to Porter Novelli after hundreds of residents complained about breathing problems and other health effects from the (LBAM aerial) spraying.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture invoked emergency powers to award the contract without competition. Porter Novelli is affiliated with Donna Lucas, former chief of staff to first lady Maria Shriver and a member of Schwarzenegger's inner circle during his first years in office. The firm subcontracted some of the work to Jeff Randle, a frequent campaign and political adviser to Schwarzenegger.
http://www.star-telegram.com/462/story/533063.html (originally AP story that caused them to cancel contact after the fact)
AG Kawamura, Secretary of the Department of Food and Agriculture: Governor Schwarzenegger appointee Secretary Kawamura is a produce grower and shipper from Orange County, where his family grows strawberries, green beans and other specialty crops.
http://www.causeusa.org/add_blog.asp?cid=204
Kawamura, who is set to be the California Secretary of Agriculture, signed on as a New Majority member shortly after the group endorsed the Governor. He gave $21,200, the legal limit, to Schwarzenegger in September.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_46_25/ai_110741291
"I'm honored to be appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger and to be a part of his team. Agriculture in California faces many challenges, but I know Schwarzenegger is someone who will listen to the rancher, growers and shippers of California to help relieve the overtaxation and overregulation that we face as farmers," said Kawamura.
The Department of Food and Agriculture oversees programs to assist and promote California's agriculture industry. The department operates as an advocate for the industry. Approximately 1,800 employees work for the department with a budget of $270 million.
http://westernfarmpress.com/news/farming_kawamura_tapped_state/
Economic Impact on Regions subject to Aerial Spray
Legal opinion letter showing need for Real Estate Sellers and Visitor Serving Facilities to disclose they are in Aerial Spray Zone, to mitigate lawsuits. Likely economic impact on these entities due to being in the aerial spray zone.
Attorney Legal Opinion letter on Disclosure and Economic Impact
Mention of economic impact due to being in spray zone in AP story.
http://www.mercurynews.com//ci_8888064?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com
Violation of Human Rights by aerial spray and possible liabilities associated with violation.
http://www.cassonline.org/PressRelease2008-04-03.html
Cites, agencies and organizations opposed to spray
http://www.stopthespray.org/organizations.htm
