An Untested Biochemical was Sprayed on California Residents Who Are Now Unwilling Participants in an Illegal Human Pesticide Experiment.

The poisonous aerial bombartment has recently been halted! There is hope for truth!

News Update 4-1-09 Professor Glen Chase Releases evidence of complete fraud on the part of the CDFA regarding the risks of chemical exposures.


Evaluating the health effects of past and future pesticides applied on and around people to combat the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM), three state agencies concluded the potential danger was low because they incorrectly divided instead of multiplying. In their analysis, the agencies divided by the thousands of acres sprayed, when they should have multiplied by the same number of thousands. If only 1,000 acres were involved, the peoples' exposure was as much as one million times greater than reported by the state agencies. [FOOTNOTE #1] In larger pesticide application areas, which are typical, the error is even greater.

The Reports were prepared by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the Department of Public Health (DPH). All three joint reports released November 3, 2008, April 10, 2008, and November 16, 2007 contain the same error. [FOOTNOTE #2]

The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), based on these incorrect reports and their enthusiasm to proceed, gave their assurance to the public that the pesticide applications directly on and around the people and their children were safe.

This extreme error in toxicity exposure could explain why hundreds of people and doctors filed written health complaints following CDFA's application of pesticides on people and their children in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties in 2007.

The state agency tests acknowledge that the pesticide (including the synthetic pheromone) is toxic and exposure can cause skin, eye and respiratory problems. The state agencies reported: "However, as the product is diluted and applied over a large area, the degree of exposure as well as the potential for irritation should decrease significantly." The state agency conclusion is false. Because the same amount of pesticide is applied to each acre treated, dilution does not occur as area size increases. Pesticide exposure increases, not decreases as the state agencies concluded. [FOOTNOTE #2]

As the product is applied over a larger area, the degree of exposure to the toxicity of the pesticide chemicals as well as the potential for irritation should increase. That is because of the greater likelihood that people will spend more of their time in an infected area. If the spray area were small, it would be likely that only time walking by or driving by was spent in the spray zone. With a large spray area, it is more likely that ones home, work, school and/or shopping would be included in the spray area. At the extreme, if the spray area were large enough to encompass a family's total activities, they would be spending 24 hours per day within the domain of the toxic pesticide zone. Many people who reported illness lived and worked in the toxic pesticide zone. The average exposure to the toxic pesticide for the human population increases as application area increases under every circumstance, not decreases as the state agencies concluded.

The synthetic pheromone that the CDFA said was non-toxic and safe for people and their children ended up testing as a moderate level 3 toxin to the skin (11/3/08 Six-pack test). This indicates a strong likelihood that the synthetic pheromone also causes respiratory problems including wheezing and asthma, but the state agencies intentionally did no inhalation tests for the synthetic pheromone specifically, so no official results exist.

The 11/3/08 Six-pack tests of the pesticides applied on the people also showed lymphocyte proliferation. Lymphocyte proliferation is the immune system rapidly producing and spreading antibodies to attack infected and cancerous cells to attempt to reject foreign tissues.

Children, pregnant woman and their unborn children within the womb are more vulnerable to toxins because of their low body weights, developing organs and low tolerance to toxins. After the CDFA pesticide applications in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, children ended up in emergency rooms. One perfectly healthy 11-month-old boy went into respiratory arrest and though his life was saved in a hospital, he now lives with an asthmatic respiratory condition. No one can accurately predict what will happen in five, ten, twenty or thirty years from now to the hundreds of thousands of people and children who were sprayed with the pesticide, because the state agencies did not do any tests on the long term effects before spraying Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties.

Science from top botanists, entomologists, toxicologists, medical doctors, invasive pest biologists and rulings from two superior California courts have clearly indicated that: (1) the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) is not an emergency or a threat to plants or crops in California, (2) LBAM has been in California for many decades, (3) LBAM has done no damage to any plant or crop and (4) LBAM is far too widespread and densely populated to eradicate. Unfortunately, none of this information is included in the CDFA's plans and analysis. If the CDFA is able to maintain the unnecessary eradication program for LBAM, they can access approximately $500 million of taxpayer emergency funds over five years. This additional windfall to the CDFA equals the dollar amount the CDFA normally receives for their entire budget for two full years. Therefore, it is impossible to get any of the management at CDFA to consider eliminating this toxic and unnecessary eradication program.

#1 The state should have multiplied by 1,000, but instead they divided by 1,000. Because the agencies divided instead of multiplying, the total error in the toxic exposure to the population, in this case, reflects the state underestimated the toxicity of the pesticide impact on the people by as much as 1,000 X 1,000 = one million times.

#2 Error and false conclusion are identified below in all three joint reports by state agencies:

Page 15, paragraph 1, line 6
11/3/2008 A Review of Acute Toxicity Studies Results on the Light Brown Apple Moth Pheromone Active Ingredient and Four LBAM Pheromone Products (Six-pack test).
Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Department of Public Health (DPH).

Page 4, paragraph 1, line 4
4/10/2008 Summary of Symptom Reports in Areas of Aerial Pheromone Application for Management of the Light Brown Apple Moth in Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties September, October, and November 2007.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), California Department of Public Health (DPH)

Page 5, paragraph 2, line 4
10/31/2007 Consensus Statement on Human Health Aspects of the Aerial Application of Microencapsulated Pheromones to Combat the Light Brown Apple Moth.
Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). This report dated 10/31/07 was released 11/16/07.


Background on Professor Chase:

Glen Chase is a Professor of Systems Management specializing in Environmental Economics and Statistics. Glen served as an Associate Professor teaching graduate level courses in Systems Management at USC for eight years. He has taught at multiple universities in the Central Coast area, including The Naval Post Graduate School, The Monterey Institute of International Studies and Cal State University, Monterey Bay. Glen is also a Management Consultant. Currently, Professor Chase develops management systems to assist organizations that cater to the improvement of life for children with disabilities.



Professor releases second report exposing the fraud of the CDFA LBAM eradication program. Press Release Prepared For The People by Professor Glen Chase

Key references from the report.
1 a. Carey, Zalom, Hammock Letter. A one-page letter from UC Davis Entomology& Agriculture Distinguished Professors to the USDA, May 28, 2008.

b. Len Richardson, Editor, California Farmer, "Exotic moth policy must change" May 2008.

c. Dan Harder, Ph.D. Executive Director Arboretum, University of California at Santa Cruz, Premier World Botanist regarding LBAM in California. [SEE REPORT #21]

d. Jeff Rosendale, Grower, Horticultural Consultant, co author of Dan Harder Report above. "Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) 101"

g. The Superior Courts of Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties found that no damage in California had occurred from LBAM, contrary to CDFA's claim. "Santa Cruz Superior Court Order 4/24/08"

11. e. Richard B. Philp, D.V.M., Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology, The University of Western Ontario.
"Analysis of Toxicology Studies with LBAM and Related Lepidopteran Pheromones"

f. Pediatrician-Recommended Measures For Schools/Parents To Protect Our Children Against The Aerial Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) Spray.

12 a."Consensus Statement on Human Health Aspects of the Aerial Application of Microencapsulated Pheromones to Combat the Light Brown Apple Moth" October 31, 2007, by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) & the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)"

13 a. "Summary of Symptom Reports in Areas of Aerial Pheromone Application for Management of the Light Brown Apple Moth in Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties September, October, and November 2007"

b. Press Release, 4/10/08 "Study shows scientists were unable to find a link between aerial spraying and illness complaints"

LBAM History, What happened, testimonials and evidence.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) recently declared a state of emergency because of a moth from Australia called the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM). The CDFA has sprayed a biochemical via airplanes, which has never been tested before, on the people of California. The side effects can be severe, and disturbing - the long term effects are not known. This spraying is not a one time event, but will continue monthly again beginning in June and August of 2008 for several years.

Update: Plant experts expose LBAM Fraud. The reality, LBAM is a pest that won't cause crop damage, and that it is self limiting due to natural predators. Read the report.

Update: New report shows that the dispersal of checkmate will likely increase mortality (death) rates by 7% due to the particle size. Read the report. (PDF)

Aerial Spray Harm Testimony

Apple Moth Investigation

LBAM Citizen Action Video, It's All About The Money

Scientific Report, LBAM Threat is a Total Hoax!

UPDATE: San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley now officially targeted.

UC Professional Experts Explain Moth Cannot Be Eradicated - so why spray chemicals on people?

News Release: Mayor Of San Fransisco Urges moratorium on aerial spray.

LBAM Social Action Video - Make Your Voice Heard

New Article Posted: San Francisco Aerial Spray Announced Article!

UPDATE: New Toxicology Report Proves Costly Long and Short-Term Health Effects From Aerial Spray

Aerial Spray Coming to San Francisco And the East Bay (2008)

USDA public affairs specialist Larry Hawkins was a little less vague. "Since LBAM has been found in San Francisco proper and in the East Bay, these areas are likely to be treated in 2008," he said. "But we're considering whether to treat them through ground applications or aerial application." Source - SF Bay Guardian

Aerial Spray Key Facts Represent a Cause of Deep Alarm! (September October, 2007)

1. Cities Are Being Targeted

Santa Cruz County, a population of over 150,000 thousand is exposed to a biochemical to control the mating habits of less than 9,000 Moths.

Santa Cruz Aerial Spray Map

Monterey County California, with the population of over 100,000 has been sprayed twice with aerial chemicals to control the population of less than 800 moths.

Monterey County Aerial Spray Map

2. Unexplained and Severe Health Effects from even Brief Exposure

These health effects include female reproductive disorders such as, sudden and severe menses, or menopause symptoms returning. Breathing problems, and breathing difficulties, such as, being unable to breath, or developing asthma. Other severe health effects including severe vomiting and coughing up blood, or nausea and skin irritations. Many people experience minor symptoms such as burning throat, headaches, skin rashes, and a metallic taste in their mouths, even when inside.

3. The aerial biochemical spray has NEVER been tested on dirt, moth's, or humans for safety or effectiveness. - "Many legitimate questions have no answers because this is basically an experiment." - LBAM Task Force Report

4. Pregnant Women, Infants, People with heart and Lung Disease's are exposed to chemicals in violation of the law, and their rights.

This is essentially a widespread pesticide experiment, with the long term health effects being unknown.

5. The spray is a pheromone surrounded in a miniature plastic ball called a microcapsule.

The capsule shell is made of dangerous and volatile chemicals - so dangerous in fact, some of them do not even have safety and data sheets for how dangerous they are to humans. The capsule degrades over 30-70 days, meaning its chemicals stay in the air, affecting humans over a prolonged period. These capsules are easily inhaled, touched, or swallowed since they are everywhere, over 30 billion are released for one spraying.

6. The Spraying is Done under an"Emergency Exemption"

There is no emergency when a moth might eat some crops. An emergency is a flood, a fire, or an earthquake. This false "emergency" gives the government organizations the excuse to break laws.

7. Funded primarily by the United States Department of Agriculture, CCC funds, which are managed by George W. Bush appointee's.

8. The Spraying boundaries are totally illogical, where some area's are sprayed, and other's left unsprayed. A logical spray boundary would include all the moth finds, not just spray the cities and leave other moth's unsprayed.

9. Citizens are in general opposed to spraying, several city counsels, have unanimously voted to oppose aerial spraying.

10. Hundreds of people have documented health effects, but the state government denies these health effects and refuses to investigate them.

11. Plans are being put in place to spray other metropolitan area's including San Francisco, Oakland and San Mateo beginning sometimes in 2008.

This is not only cause for alarm, but a cause for grave concern, that citizens are being sprayed against their will, regardless of their health or maternity status, with a chemical never, ever tested before on anything. What rights do we have left in our democracy, when we cannot choose to not be exposed to potentially deadly chemicals? Your action, help, and attention are urgently needed to stop this government backed assault.

Why Aerial Spraying over California is Illegal

Aerial spraying violates individuals civil rights. It is a criminal act to spray known poisons on people. Just because the people do this work for the government does not mean that it is now a legal or good thing to do.

Aerial Spraying violates several significant state and federal laws.

  1. California Environmental Quality Act - a law designed specifically to prevent such environmental dangers.
  2. California Anti Pollution Laws - Private property is not to be polluted
  3. California State Constitution - Provides the right to personal safety
  4. California Pesticide Laws - Protects individuals from pesticide drift
  5. California Medical Experimentation Laws - Substances that act like a drug should not be tested on humans
  6. The Faroes Statement - A consensus of over 200 scientists that shows that chemicals can harm unborn children and infants.
  7. American With Disabilities Act - The government needs to accommodate people with disabilities, such as asthma, heart or lung disease, even pregnancy, and other health conditions which would be adversely affected by inhaling or ingesting known toxic chemicals.
  8. Federal Constitution - Right to liberty, and the right of due process of law. The law shall not arbitrary affect a certain segment of the population in an unfair way (the people of the sprayed counties)
  9. Federal EPA Laws - The EPA shall not test pesticides, nor promote the use of pesticides on pregnant women or infants.
  10. Title 42 - Government Employee's should not conspire to create laws that harm other people.
  11. Rico (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) - The government is acting in a deliberate and organized fashion to poison people.

Beyond these laws, and the many more that are broken, there are international civil and moral laws the prohibit human experimentation - such as using untested chemicals on people, without their consent. Aerial spraying is also anti-democratic, because it is removing people's choice to choose to be free of chemicals, and to choose to protect their bodies from exposure to potentially deadly chemicals.

People of the world, we need your help, help us stop this unethical chemical assault on men, women, children, the sick, the elderly and nature.