Light brown apple moth controversy

This resulted in restrictions on importing and exporting produce from infested areas between the US, Mexico, and Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

[3] The California Department of Food and Agriculture issued a State Interior Quarantine order restricting intrastate shipment of plant material from counties where LBAM had been found.

In late 2007, the California moth eradication program controversially included aerial spraying of a product containing sex pheromones that attract LBAM males over sixty square miles near the Pacific coast between Monterey and Santa Cruz.

[13] In December 2015, a California appeals court ruled against the LBAM pesticide program on the grounds that it violated state environmental laws by not sufficiently considering less harmful alternatives.

[7] Of the 74 people who said they sought medical assistance, most reported asthma exacerbations or non-specific respiratory symptoms such as cough, shortness of breath, runny nose, or wheezing.

[15] Critics state that no published efficacy reports on the pheromone formulations used aerially against LBAM exist,[16][self-published source?]

[citation needed] Other critics of the aerial spray plan, such as The California Nevada Regional Conservation Committee of the Sierra Club,[20] propose that twist ties be impregnated with the pheromone and hung on trees and other structures across the area.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture has determined that more than nine million twist ties would be required to cover the infested area.

"[25] Bragman, like others, notes that the moth is not a quarantine pest in Europe, and pointed to the recent research papers by Harder[26] and Carey that he believes constitute technical and scientific information which should be conveyed to trade representatives.

"[28] On April 9, 2008, California Congressmember Sam Farr (D-Carmel) further inquired at an agriculture hearing in Washington D.C. about how and when the light brown apple moth was blacklisted and whether it should be declassified from that status.

News stories about the inquiry quoted Farr as saying: "If we don’t even know why the moth is listed as a dangerous pest, it’s impossible to determine how far we must go to control it or whether the current emergency eradication tactics are justified.

"[29][30] In December 2013, James Carey and Daniel Harder published an article criticizing the way expert panels are structured, because they permit scientists involved in a decision-making process to have private discussions and do not generally release information about internal disagreements to the public.

[31] By June 2008, over 30 California city councils including San Francisco, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Seaside, Santa Cruz, Oakland, Albany and Berkeley had passed resolutions against the spray and over 80 environmental, health and political groups were on record opposing it.

[33][34] On March 13, 2008, Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, introduced Assembly Concurrent Resolution 117, calling on the Departments of Food and Agriculture and Pesticide Regulation, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and other state agencies to answer unresolved questions.

Laird's Invasive Pest Planning Act of 2008, AB 2763, passed the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee by a vote of 4–0 on April 2 of 2008.

[36] On March 22, 2008, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom wrote a public letter to the Governor urging him to study health consequences before continuing with the spray campaign.

The investigation also focused on an expected winner in the contract, naming Jeff Randle, a frequent campaign and political adviser to Arnold Schwarzenegger, as being promised by state officials to receive a share of the work.

A CDFA spokesperson said that U.S. Department of Agriculture would be reimbursing the state of California for much of the cost of the $497,000 PR firm contract, but could not provide any details.

On May 8 CDFA's attorney Anita Ruud told Monterey County Judge O'Farrell the EIR is expected to be complete in January 2009.

In response to Judge Burdick's question CDFA's attorney Bill Jenkins admitted that LBAM had done "no documented damage" to California agriculture or ecosystems.

Judge Burdick did not find any evidence that the arrival of the light brown apple moth in California constitutes the claimed emergency.

The judge ruled that CDFA had illegally exempted themselves from the California Environmental Quality Act because there was no "substantial evidence" of significant damage by the LBA moth.

James Carey and Daniel Harder published a paper titled, "Clear, Present, Significant, & Imminent Danger: Questions for the California Light Brown Apple Moth (Epiphyas postvittana) Technical Working Group," in the journal, American Entomologist.