Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMALATHION SPRAYING - Resolution 6125, 6110 - 1990 .,STAW,0F CAL FORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTML--NT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE (2, 1220 N Street Sacramento, California 95814 April 13, 1990 CID Kcs The Honorable Thomas J. Mays Mayor, City of Huntington Beach co :,,�',o 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 c� C� Dear Mayor Mays: Your resolution to Director Voss regarding the Medfly project, which was submitted by Connie Brockway, Huntington Beach City Clerk, has been referred to this office for response. We appreciate the concerns of the Huntington Beach City Council and thank you for sending a copy of your resolution. We understand the very difficult situation you and the other members of the City Council must face. Your constituents, and very likely members of the Council itself, don't know what to believe about the public health aspects of the aerial malathion bait spraying. This is due to the fact that media coverage often focuses on controversy, not.facts. The basic question is, "Who should we believe?" This Department understands that its statutory mission in support of California's agriculture can create the perception of bias and narrow perspective. That is why we must rely on toxicologists and other health professionals employed by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Health .Services, in addition to our own toxicological staff. The important thing is that all of these experts agree that the human health risks of malathion have been extensively studied, that the studies are valid, that the product is not carcinogenic, and that it does not cause birth defects. With respect to the aerial spraying itself, the experts agree that the very small quantities being applied in a protein bait mixture pose no significant health risks. Only a few have voiced dissenting opinions. The media and project critics have focused on these in stirring up the controversy. However, most reasonable people are willing to accept the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, a summary of which is enclosed for the Council to read and share with its constituents. Dr. Kenneth Kizer, Director of the State Department of Health Services, recently appointed a panel of 20 physicians, toxicologists, occupational health specialists and citizen representatives. Dr. Kizer specifically invited individuals who have expressed doubts about the safety of malathion. In a briefing to the Legislature, Dr. Kizer stated emphatically that it would be unwise to suspend spraying while this committee meets. He stated that the Department of Health Services has reviewed malathion "again and again and again" and that there is negligible health risk to the public, as the product is currently applied. The Honorable Thomas J. Mays Page 2 April 13, 1990 As you may already know, the Director recently announced that sterile Medfly release will be used to replace malathion bait applications as soon as sufficient quantities are available. We anticipate aerial spraying will end in Huntington Beach on May 3, to be replaced by sterile fly release. I hope you will share this information with your community members. Our experience has shown that much of the anxiety caused by this program can be relieved by reassurance and information. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact my office. Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Rex Magee Associate Director (916) 322-6315 Enclosure cc: Director's Office Connie Brockway, City Clerk ✓ California's Medfly Eradication Program f dt's U S a t4 71 What is the Medfly and why do we need to eradicate it? 0 Malathion -- is it safe? i7l What are we doing to prevent future Medfly infestations? State of California WHAT IS THE MEDFLY AND WHY DO WE NEED TO ERADICATE IT? Henry Voss Director, Department of Food and Agriculture The jobs of hundreds of thousands of our residents whose livelihoods depend on agriculture are threatened as a result' of the current infestation of the Medfly. The Medfly is a small pest that can have big consequences . Unlike some pests which prey on only one kind of crop or plant, the Medfly can destroy nearly every type of fruit and vegetable grown in California. Given the wide variety of susceptible crops grown by farmers and home gardeners, there is no doubt that if the current infestation of Medflies is not stopped, it will grow and result in a devastating impact on every citizen in our state. Consumers would be faced with higher food costs, a greater chance that the fruit they purchased would contain maggots, travel .delays resulting from increased inspection of baggage and parcels, and higher costs for regulatory operations that would be associated with a federal quarantine. To compound the seriousness of this threat, there are no viable biological, cultural or plant resistance controls for the Medfly. . If the current infestation were to spread, farmers would be forced to rely solely upon the use of more pesticides for control . Farmers and homeowners would suffer enormous economic losses . 'A 1981 study prepared by the University of California and the �Giannini Foundation for Agricultural Economics estimated that. agriculture losses could top $750 million annually. Other . studies have concluded similarly costly consequences for our state. In addition, if this pest is allowed to become established, California stands to lose a major portion of its $5 billion agricultural export market. The U.S. Department of Agriculture . would be forced to impose a quarantine on California products in an effort to prevent the spread of this infestation to other states . A recent letter sent. to our Food and Agriculture Department from Doyle Conner, Director of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services underscores this point. It says : "I wish to express my deep concern over the jeopardy facing the California Medfly Eradication Program. The failure of this program could have a devastating impact, not only on American agriculture, but consumers as well. Florida is prepared to give you whatever assistance possible within our available state resources . However, if , the program fails, we will be obligated to press the USDA for strict quarantine measures against infested areas of California. " -1- Quarantines on California-grown products would also be imposed by many .other countries . In fact, Mexico has already taken this step in response to our current infestation, although the quarantine is currently limited to crops produced in six counties . Japan, Korea and the Philippines could be expected to follow suit, as could many of our other trading partners throughout the world. The result would be higher costs to producers and buyers, an increase ' in the amount of chemicals used on our crops, and a . reduction in the worldwide demand for California' s agriculture .products . In. '. other parts. of the world where Medflies have become established, such as . Hawaii and Israel, the consequences for the domestic agriculture industry. have been devastating. Hawaii, which at one time grew much of its own fruit and vegetables, now must import these crops for its people. Home gardeners in Hawaii lose virtually 100 percent of their fruit to the Medfly unless the fruit is sprayed heavily, and often, with pesticides . Similarly, Israel is permitted only- to export its citrus products and only after those products have been treated. Soft fruits, such as pears, plums and peaches, cannot be exported..to _other countries because of. the Medfly. But the Medfly is more than just an agricultural problem. If allowed to make California its permanent home, the quality of life r foall Californians would be diminished. Home gardeners would also be forced to use millions more pounds of pesticides each year to fight a pest . that we do not want here in the first place. In a 1984 study, it was estimated that if half of the homes in California treated their backyard gardens to control Medflies, it would introduce an additional 2 . 1 million pounds of 'pesticides into our environment each year. The specter of greatly increased pesticide usage, higher .costs, and the threat to our multi-billion dollar domestic and agricultural export industries makes it clear that our . aggressive ' Medfly eradication program is the appropriate course of action, and it must be continued. The goal of our . current Medfly eradication program is to eliminate the infestation and protect California from suffering the same consequences that have resulted from widespread infestation ' of the Medfly in. other parts of the world. It is important to note that the eradication program now underway in our state is not an experiment. It is based on proven, established techniques which have been successful in , the past. The Medfly infestation which occurred in our state in the Santa Clara Valley in 1980-1982 proved that doing too little to combat this pest is a damaging long term tactic. -2- In response , our Department �of Food and Agriculture has strengthened and expanded our state's system of border stations and detection trapping program. We have contributed monies to rear sterile Caribbean, Mediterranean and Mexican fruit flies to fight infestations of these pests. We are funding research to develop better lures and traps. and improve our detection program, and . we are actively investigating non-pesticidal materials for use. ' in bait• sprays'. After a Medfly was trapped on July 20, 1989 near the Dodger. Stadium in Los :Angeles County, eradication began using a single aerial application of malathion bait spray followed by the release , of. sterile Medflies for two generations. Treatment in the area was . completed in September. Subsequently, Medflies were trapped in` Mountain View in Northern California and in an ever expanding area of Southern ' California. In response to the spreading of infestation, the Department convened its Medfly Science Advisory Panel on December 5-7; 1989 . This panel , which consists of five internationally-known entomologists, was established following the Medfly infestation of 1980-82 . The Panel unanimously recommended that the Department continue to release sterile Medflies in three areas: Mountain View, Santa Clara County; Alta Loma, San Bernardino County; and Baldwin Park/Whittier', Los Angeles County. It further recommended that all other infested areas be treated with multiple sprays of malathion .bait'. As of March- 15, there are 13 malathion bait spray treatment zones (Sylmar, North Hollywood, Panorama City, Rosemead/Monrovia, Eagle Rock/South Pasadena , Brea/La Habra , Southgate , Glendora , Downey/Norwalk, Irwindale, Verdugo Hills , Garden Grove, and Pomona) . An area of 383 square miles is encompassed. A separate area of 190 square miles is being treated using all available supplies of sterile Medflies from ,Hawaii and Mexico. Medfly eradication efforts in San Bernardino and Santa Clara Counties are progressing well. If the program in Los Angeles and Orange Counties proceeds as planned, 'and if• no additional flies are found, the program is scheduled to end by June or July, 1990. -3- MALATHION -- IS IT SAFE? Kenneth W. Kizer, M.D. , M.P.H Director, Department of Health Services The recent spraying of malathion to eradicate the infestation of the Mediterranean Fruit Fly (Medfly) in Southern California has resulted in numerous questions and much controversy. After long and careful review of the scientific data available on malathion, the position of the California Department of Health Services (CDHS ) is that the aerial application of bait-containing malathion under the procedures currently being utilized by the California Department of Food and Agriculture poses no significant public health risks to the involved communities . This position is based on several lines of. evidence: Analysis of data from the peer reviewed scientific literature, along with government and private industry documents of human and animal exposures to malathion, indicate thatmalathion exposure at the very low doses used in the bait- application program are not high enough to be dangerous to human health. ° The scientific consensus at this time is that malathion is not, a carcinogen. In a risk assessment conducted in 1980, CDHS concluded that even under highly unlikely conditions (i .e. , a naked infant exposed to six applications of malathion totaling approximately 60 mg) , and assuming that malathion were a carcinogen, exposure to malathion from bait application would not pose a significant increased risk of cancer. Since that time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ' ` the National Toxicology Program, The International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the National Cancer Iinstitute have all opined that malathion is not a carcinogen. ° During the Medfly eradication effort in Northern California in 1980-1982, CDHS conducted a number of studies prior to', during, and after the malathion bait application.- No increases in birth defects or low-birth weight were found. No `cases of pesticide illness were detected in a study at a hospital emergency room, nor was there any confirmed increases in the prevalence of any malathion-related or presumably unrelated symptoms . ° Scientists generally consider malathion to have relatively low acute and chronic toxicity. The problems generally associated with malathion overexposure, such as those that may be received by agricultural workers are related to one- time exposures to levels of malathion many times higher than those levels possible from being exposed to malathion bait . -4- From a public health perspective, eradication of the Medfly by using aerial malathion bait applications is preferable to either allowing the Medfly to become established in California or eradication by other more hazardous pesticides . Non-chemical options of controlling Medfly . intrusions into California, including biological control measures, enhanced enforcement of quarantined areas, and increased support , for'*, alternative pesticide research, continue to be strongly supported by CDHS . CDHS has recommended to CDFA that it increase its efforts in developing non-chemical means for pest control . Currently, introduction of sterile male Medflies in infested areas is an important means for controlling the. Medfly population. However, it is the opinion of the entomologists at CDFA that repeated aerial malathion bait applications are still necessary to eradicate the Medfly until an adequate -supply of sterile Medflies becomes available. We defer to them on this matter in light of our being convinced of the public safety of the aerial spraying program. It is important to note that no scientific information has come to light to indicate that our previous risk assessment was incorrect. Nevertheless, the public concern along with general public health diligence, prompts CDHS to review all studies related to malathion in a 199.0 "state-of-the-art" risk assessment. Since malathion rapidly breaks down in the environment and, thus, is not concentrated in the food chain, "environmental accumulation" of malathion- following repeated applications does not . occur. (Malathion is an organophosphate pesticide and, unlike organochlorine compounds such as DDT, it does not have the chemical characteristics that allow for it to persist in the environment. ) Further, in humans, malathion is rapidly metabolized and excreted; it does not accumulate in body tissues . The bait vehicle in which malathion is applied is a mixture of corn sugars and protein and, thus, is not hazardous to humans, although it can damage some automobile paints as can egg whites, tree pitch and soft drinks . t CDHS is also evaluating the hazards, if any, associated with inert ingredients and contaminants found in technical grade malathion. Technical grade malathion contains a small fraction of manufacturing impurities (less than 5 percent) which are routinely analyzed for in the toxicity tests conducted on malathion. Available information from the manufacturer indicates that the inert ingredients pose no threat to public health. CDHS is currently reevaluating the potential health effects from exposure to two of the impurities -- i .e . , malaoxon and isomalathion. These compounds are chemically .related to malathion. Preliminary evidence suggests that these impurities are more toxic than malathion. However, these would not present any significant public health risk if present at levels up to one percent. As a. result, CDHS has strongly urged CDFA to test -5- all malathion preparations to be used in the Medfly project for levels of these impurities . We understand that they are doing this and that batches of malathion with excess levels of these impurities will not be used . Although the overwhelming scientific consensus is that aerial application of malathion in a corn syrup/protein bait does not pose any significant public health hazard when used as recommended by CDFA in this program, there is still some debate about a few issues in the scientific community. This is not surprising to us . The basic nature of science is that some individuals always take different points of view relating to a given issue. Essentially nothing is ever absolutely proven in science, yet a majority of evidence usually favors one theory. However, it is normal and appropriate that some scientists express dissenting views from the majority. This is why CDHS has convened a, panel of independent health experts to. provide -an open forum for the scientific review of the public health effects of the malathion bait application program. The Public Health Effects Advisory Committee will eventually recommend to CDHS its consensus opinion on malathion toxicity. This process is expected to take several months to a year. Based on these recommendations and the results of the 1990 CDHS risk assessment, the Department will reevaluate its position, if necessary, on the safety of aerial malathion bait application. However, CDHS and many other scientists feel confident about our current position. CDHS has advised residents of communities where aerial malathion . bait application is underway to take some simple, general precautions to reduce exposure to malathion. This is because CDHS believes it is always prudent to reduce avoidable exposures to any potentially hazardous chemical . Although CDHS . considers aerial application of malathion bait to pose no significant health risk to the exposed community, reducing exposures by staying indoors during application, covering playground equipment such as sandboxes, and removing clothes from outdoor lines are reasonable and easy ways to reduce exposure. Similarly, although the amount of malathion in the protein bait is many times lower than the , levels required to be dangerous to wild animals or pets, CDHS recommends- that residents keep pets indoors during application. These prudent precautions simply increase the already substantial safety of the Medfly eradication program. -6- THE STATE HEALTH DIRECTOR REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ABOUT MALATHION SAFETY Q: Is malathion safe? A: Malathion is among the safest insecticides in use. For many years, it has been commonly used around the home, in gardens and in orchards . It is used for the treatment of head lice on children and adults at a dose far greater than anyone would be exposed to in the bait application area. It has been used for decades around the world in mosquito abatement programs at concentrations much higher than used in the Medfly eradication program. Q: r You say malathion is safe, but some people in the application area claim they're becoming ill because of it. A: We have heard that, too. These claims need to be verified by a physician knowledgeable in toxicology because there are many reasons why people can develop coughs, diarrhea, headaches and other symptoms . Anyone who thinks he or she has been made ill by this application should see their physician. Appropriate tests should be done and a report of any illness sent to the local health department. All reports will be investigated if they appear to be authentic and pesticide related. Q: Why do the experts disagree on the safety of this product? A: . First of all, the experts really do not disagree about the safety of this product in the way it is being used. And second, nothing in science is absolute. It is the very nature of science to have somewhat differing views on many issues . However, the consensus of scientists is that malathion, as used in this program, is quite safe. Q: Are there people who are exceptionally sensitive? A: It is theoretically possible that people could become allergic to this chemical or to the corn syrup/protein- bait. However, the likelihood -- at the doses being applied to this community -- that a significant number of people would become allergic to malathion or the bait is exceedingly small . Q: Does malathion cause birth defects? A: Scientific evidence does not show a linkage between malathion and birth defects . The Department of Health Services studied birth defect and other birth outcome data in areas where malathion was used during a 14 month period in 1981 and 1982 . The study found no difference in comparable areas where malathion was not applied, nor any difference in birth weight. The current eradication program in Southern California is using the same dosage that was used in the earlier bait application program. Thus, we do not believe there is any hazard to pregnant women and their babies . -7- Q: Does malathion cause cancer? A: The scientific literature does not show malathion to cause cancer in humans or in laboratory animals fed large doses of the compound. The National Cancer Institute has conducted tests on malathion and views it to be non-carcinogenic . Q: Why do you tell people to keep their pets inside? A: Actually, there is no specific health reason why persons should keep their pets inside during the malathion application. It is' a general precaution. Important to note, the doses being used in the eradication program would be far less than any dose used to control fleas or other pet pests . It is possible, however, that the low-flying helicopters may frighten pets, which might cause them to hurt themselves or harm property. Q: What are the dangers to children's play areas -- for example, sandboxes or yards? A: It is virtually impossible for a child to be exposed to a. significant amount of malathion from lying or playing in the grass or sand after the bait application. The amount in a typical sandbox would- be extraordinarily small . On the other hand, there certainly would be no harm for parents to hose down yard areas after the bait application if they were concerned. Again, this is a general precaution. Q: If it's so safe, why do you tell people to go inside when the helicopters are going over? A: In general, we do not think people should expose themselves unnecessarily to any chemical . There is no benefit to anyone. to stand underneath a helicopter applying the bait. By the same token, there isn't likely to be any adverse effect, but we think it's a reasonable general precaution to go inside during the application of malathion. Q: if malathion is not dangerous to humans why does it damage the paint on cars? A: Many materials damage some automobile finishes, including raw eggs , tree pitch, bird droppings and soft drinks . The malathion bait is similar. If it gets on your car, you should wash it off . Q: I've heard that malathion is derived from nerve gas. A: This is a gross exaggeration. Malathion is in a family of compounds that can inhibit certain enzymes -in the body. Some ' chemicals in this family are extremely toxic, while malathion is far less toxic. And the doses used in the aerial bait program are minuscule. Saying malathion is like nerve gas is like saying automobiles and computers are the same because they are both machines . -8- i Q: If I'm growing fruits and vegetables in the backyard, can Iy eat them after this application? A: Malathion is used on many food products that we eat every Q day. It can be easily removed by washing. People who have backyard gardens :should ,wash . fruits and vegetables before they eat them for many reas'ons-: Beyond that, no special efforts need to be taken. Q: What is the Department of Health Services doing to monitor the safety of the current malathion application program? A: The . Department has established a Malathion Public Health Effects Advisory Committee to address public concerns about the current malathion program. This committee will provide an open., scientific and medical forum to address public health concerns about the Medfly Project . In addition, the Department is updating its 1 risk assessment of malathion conducted in 1980 . This will include further .' review of scientific research conducted on malathion in the last decade. Q: Why -not stop the aerial applications while you conduct the ` study? A: The study will take several months -- perhaps as long as a year. The Medfly could gain a permanent foothold in California if the aerial bait program were suspended, and we believe the potential public health threats of that eventuality far outweigh any risks associated with continuing the aerial bait program. Q: What are the public health risks if the Medfly is not stopped? A: If the Medfly becomes established, backyard gardeners and farmers , will likely take the battle into their own hands . We fear there would be much greater use of pesticides that are far more poisonous than malathion in attempts to control the pest. In addition, the fumigation process, which would be required to prepare agricultural products for export from the Medfly area, would require the use of highly toxic fumigant pesticides . Q: Does DHS endorse the aerial malathion bait application? A: The Department is very concerned about the potential, public health consequences if the Medfly is allowed to become endemic to California. We suspect that a large Medfly infestation could result in widespread use of pesticides which are far more dangerous than malathion. Likewise, fruits and vegetables which are infested with maggots are not, a very appealing prospect, and we are concerned that, as a result, consumption of fruits and vegetables would decrease. -9- e WHAT ARE WE DOING TO PREVENT FUTURE MEDFLY INFESTATIONS? Henry Voss Director, Department of Food and Agriculture To protect California' s agriculture,; industry from future infestations of Medflies and other : harmful pests, our state has developed and administers '•an elaborate pest prevention system. It is a program which involves both the state and local agricultural officials, and costs more than $50 million a year. The pest exclusion element of our program consists of an extensive network of 16 border agricultural inspection stations on the major highways entering the state, offices at our three major ports and five interior offices . Despite these efforts, however, Medflies and other agricultural pests have continued to find their way into California. One major pathway for the introduction of these pests into our state is in infested products sent by first class mail to California residents . To address this problem, the Deukmejian administration was r instrumental in winning passage of federal legislation that makes it illegal to mail any quarantined plant material . This law went into effect November 1 , 1989 and will help prevent dangerous infestations and plant diseases from entering California in the future. l To enforce this new law, the United States Postal Service recently agreed to initiate a pilot project in its Hawaiian office using sniffing dogs to detect packages that contain fruits and other plant materials . The Postal Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture j have also informed our state officials of their intent to develop a U public awareness effort in Hawaii and to better equip postal employees to .support this important endeavor. To locate any future infestations in their early stages, our Department., is also taking steps to improve our detection trapping program. At the same time, there must be sufficient sterile fly capacity to support large-scale eradication efforts . The Department of Food and Agriculture is currently setting up a new sterile Medfly production facility in Hawaii . This facility will be capable of producing 100 to 150 million flies per week, and production will begin by the first week of May, 1990 . When these flies become available, they will be used on our Medfly- eradication effort in Southern California. In addition, the USDA' s existing sterile Medfly facility in Wimanalo, Hawaii, is expected to produce about 100 to 200 million sterile flies per week beginning in May, 1990 . Research and testing for non-pesticidal and ground spraying alternatives must also be pursued if we are to succeed in the long run. These are costly initiatives, but they are essential to preventing widespread infestations of the Medfly and other dangerous threats to California' s agriculture industry. o -10- i RESOLUTION NO. 6125 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, URGING THE STATE OF CAL.IFORNIA TO RE-EVALUATE THE ALTERNATIVES TO COMBATTING MEDFLY INFESTATION AND OPPOSING AERIAL SPRAYING UNTIL FURTHER SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION IS AVAILABLE WHEREAS, there continues to be serious concern expressed by the medical and scientific communities about the long-term effects on humans_ and the environment resulting from continued aerial malathion spraying to combat the Medfly; and Spraying thus far has not been successful in eliminating the spread of the Medfly; and The new shipments of sterile Medflies from both Mexico and Hawaii to the Southern California area are imminent; and It is projected that adequate supplies of sterile Medflies should be available within the next few months; and We have not exhausted less drastic measures such as ground application and preventive education; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby determines as follows : 1 . The California Department of Food and Agriculture is hereby urged to immediately terminate aerial spraying . 2 . The California Department of Food and Agriculture is hereby urged to re-evaluate and revise the alternatives to combatting Medfly infestation prior to conducting another aerial spraying . :� -1- 3 . The California Department of Food and Agriculture is hereby urged to re-examine the distribution of sterile flies in those areas reporting the presence of the Medfly. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of March 1990 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Cwa�I�LGG — ,iL—"( /Yc,j 7 City Cle,r . W City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED.: INITIATED AND APPROVED: 1 City Administrator Deputy City Adminis rator -2- 6125 Res, No. 6125 STATE_ OF CALIFORNIA- COUNTY OF ORANGE ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH) I , CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of March 1990 by the following vote: t j AYES: Councilmembers: MacAllister, Winchell, Green, Mays, Bannister Silva, Erskine NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None City ClerF and ex-o o Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California FROM:SUP. HARRIETT WIEDER TO:99695684 MAY 71 1990 4: 15PM P.03 C 0 Lt rve HARRIETT M. WIEDEIR SUPERVISOR, SECOND DISTRICT v. ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMIN15TRATION h 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA,P, O. BOX 687, SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92702-0687 PHONE: 834.3220(AREA CODE 714) May 7, 1990, The Honorable Board of Supervisors Hall of Administration 10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, California 92701 Dear Board Members: On Friday, Max 4, the Medfly Science Advisory Panel made a recommendation to continue aerial spraying in the Garden Grove area. The recommendation asks that the Garden Grove area remain under the bait spray treatment program through the end of May. The area has already had six aerial bait applications, and with the recommendation to continue spraying on a seven to ten day cycle, the residents would most likely be subjected to an additional three sprays. This recommendation comes at time when the area's residents were assured that the spraying would end May 3, and that sterile medfly's would be available for the duration of the eradication program. The Medfly Science Advisory Panel is now advising that the sterile medfly's be used elsewhere and that Garden Grove be sprayed though the second generation of the medfly; approximately June 11 1990. The Director of the Department of Food and Agriculture, Henry Voss, will release his decision today, on whether to continue spraying in the Garden Grove area. Although I support the intent of the State to deal with the medfly problem, I question the appropriateness of using the Emergency Services Act for this purpose. By using the Act, the State is in essence shielding itself from accountability, and precluding input in the decision-making process by elected officials and their constituencies. This is a an on-going and long-term program that deserves both adequate health and environmental review, At this time, this is not a component of the eradication program with the Governor being advised by entomologists and not by health officials. This is a time for needed County coordination. I urge you to join me in voicing your concern in Sacramento regarding any additional spraying of the Garden Grove area. I also ask that you vote against continuing the County's Declaration of Emergency. Sincerely, YARRIETT M. WIEDER Supervisor, Second District HMW:cbs CYPRESS•OARDEN GROVE- Mt wm(ITON BEACH • LOS ALAWTOS • ROSSr OOR •SEAL BEACH •STANTON•SLMET 8-60A •wESTMINSTER FROM:SUP. HARRIETT WIEDER TO:99695684 MAY 7} 1990 4: 15PM P.02 ' HAIZRIETT M. IVIEDER �►` SUPERVISOR, SECOND DISTRICT ORA14GE COUNTY WALL OF ADMINISTRATION 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, P.0. BOX 687, SANTA ANA.CALIFORNIA 92702-0687 PHONE' 834.32ZO(AREA CODE 714) ' PRESS ADVISORY MAY 7, 1990 SEE ATTACM,D. CYPRESS •GARDEN QROVE• r JNTINOTON BEACH• LOS ALAMITOS•ROSSMOOR •SEAL MACH •STANTON•SUNSET BEACH •WESTMINSTER CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 1, 1990 Janice Warner, City Clerk City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Blvd.- P.O. Box 399 Rosemead, CA 91770 Dear Mrs. Warner: I have transmitted your city's Resolution No. 90-12 Malathion Spraying to the members of my city council . Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 6110 adopted by the Huntington Beach City Council on January 22, 1990. Sincerely, t� Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:pm Enclosure (Telephone: 714-536-5227) MAYOR-! 0 bENNIS McDONALDRlemead MAYOR PRO TEM: JAY T.IMPERIAL 14! I COUNCILMEN: 00000 00000 ROBERT W.BRUESCH 8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD • P.O. BOX 399 ROBERT DeCOCKER *f' ROSEMEAD,CALIFORNIA 91770 GARY A.TAYLOR TELEPHONE(818)288-6671 TELECOPIER 8183079218 February 26 , 1990 At their regular meeting on February 13 , 1990 , the Rosemead City Council took action on the attached resolution and requested that a copy be sent to you for your information and consideration. Sincerely, ICE WARNER City Clerk City of Rosemead Attachment E. 26 : 1 E. 26 : 1 1 ` r RESOLUTION NO. 90-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD REQUESTING THAT THE AERIAL APPLICATION OF MALATHION INSECTICIDE BE SUSPENDED IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY WHEREAS, members of the Rosemead City Council recognize the importance of California's agricultural industry and the devastation that the Mediterranean Fruit Fly can bring; and WHEREAS, State Department of Food and Agriculture officials have administered the aerial spraying of Malathion insecticide over various parts of Los Angeles and Orange Counties in an attempt .to eradicate the Medfly; and WHEREAS, a public concern has been expressed that there may be serious health and environmental considerations that have not been properly or adequately addressed regarding the repeated application of Malathion; and WHEREAS, there is a special concern regarding the short and long term health effects Malathion may have on small children; and WHEREAS, the members of the Rosemead City Council feel strongly that it is the responsibility of government to protect the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Rosemead as follows: Section 1 . Members of the Rosemead City Council hereby formally request the State of California to suspend all aerial Malathion applications until independent and reliable analysis have conclusively shown that Malathion is not hazardous to the health of humans or to the environment generally. Section 2 . Members of the City Council hereby urge the State of California to vigorously seek alternatives to aerial Malathion spraying and implement these alternatives to protect the State's important agricultural industry. Section 3 . State and County officials are urged to institute a comprehensive public education program regarding the Mediterranean Fruit Fly, its eradication and insecticides in order to increase the public understanding of all related issues. Section 4 . The City Clerk is hereby directed to provide certified copies of this Resolution to Governor George Deukmejian, United States Senators Alan Cranston and Pete Wilson, Congressman Matthew Martinez, Assemblywoman Sally Tanner, the League of California Cities , and the California Contract Cities Association. Section 5. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is hereby directed to affix his signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, is directed to attest thereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this y of Feb uary, 1990. MAYOR I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 90-12 ATTEST: was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead at a regular meeting thereof held on the 13th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: QITY CLERK Yes: DeCocker, Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None ,Cl,tY'CLERK State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) SS City of Rosemead ) I hereby certify that the foregoing instrument is a full, true and correct copy of the original on file in this office. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my h nc and affixed the seal of the City of Rosemead, this day of 1990 . C ' y Clerk E. 41 : 8 RESOLUTION NO 6110_, ;.. .,� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH URGING RE-EVALUATION AND REVISION OF THE ALTERNATIVES TO COMBATTING MEDFLY INFESTATION PRIOR TO CONDUCTING ANOTHER AERIAL SPRAYING WHEREAS, there continues to be serious concern expressed by the medical and scientific communities about the long term effects on humans and the environment resulting from continued malathion spraying to combat the medfly; and, Spraying thus far has not been successful in eliminating the spread of the medfly; and, No evaluation has been done on the quality of the sterile medflies previously released; and, The new shipments of sterile medflys from both Mexico and - Hawaii to the Southern California area are imminent; and, It is projected that adequate supplies of sterile medflys should be available within the next few months ; and, We have not exhausted less drastic measures such as ground application and preventive education. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby resolves as follows : SECTION 1 . The California Department of Food and Agriculture is hereby urged to re-evaluate and revise the alternatives to co,«batting medfly infestation prior to conducting another aerial spraying . SECTION 2 . The California Department of Food and Agriculture is hereby urged to re-examine the distribution of sterile flies in those areas reporting the presence of the medfly. •.`.J.1 1 - -` SECTION 3 . The California Department of Food and Agriculture is hereby urged to consider the creation of a "medfly curtain" along the pass separating our neighborhood and communities from the farmlands of North and Central California . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach on the 22nd day of January 1990 . Mayor - ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk ;';/,'-City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Community Development k�.R'41 2 - A COMMENTARY ON MALATHION SPRAYING By Peter Green, Ph.D Malathion is in the air. Aerial spraying is expected to increase in frequency over larger areas of Orange County this spring and summer. As a college Biology instructor and the Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Huntington Beach (a portion of which is targeted for spraying the week of January 22), I would like to comment: WHAT IS MALATHION? Malathion is an organophosphate, one of a group of chemicals that functions by blocking nerve impulses—a nerve gas. Rachel Carson, in 1962, pointed out that it is considered a less toxic compound because it can be detoxified by a liver enzyme. However, each exposure to malathion reduces the body's ability to detoxify it, as reported by James Warf in 1984. The U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1969) warned that "skin penetration by organophosphates may be substantial. In view of the toxic potential of these compounds, protection of workers exposed to them assumes the utmost importance." DOES MALATHION CAUSE BIRTH DEFECTS? When malathion was injected into the yolk sac of fertile bird eggs prior to incubation, as a test of toxicity, there was "not only a low percentage of hatch at a low level of the che::ical tested, but there are also congenital abnormalities and other µ responses that raise extremely serious questions as to the safety to the consumers of any food contaminated with these chemicals." (Joseph McLaughlin, et al., as reported in' Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 1963). There is substantial scientific research that malathion can cause abnormal growth and structure in mammalian embryos. After the 1981-82 aerial eradication program in Santa Clara County, a short term study was begun to investigate possible birth defects among children born to those mothers exposed to repeated spraying of malation during their pregnancies. Unfortunately, I do not have the results of that study. DOES MALATHION CAUSE CANCER? Melvin Reuber, reviewing the scientific literature on the carcinogenicity and toxicity of malathion (1984), reported that cancerous growths on the endocrine organs, brain and liver, as well as ulcers, chronic renal disease and atrophy of the testes in laboratory rats have been reported. He observes that, "in tests undertaken to date, it has been demonstrated that virtually every chemical which has been found to be carcinogenic in humans is also carcinogenic in one or more mammalian test animals." DOES MALATHION AFFECT OTHER LIVING ORGANISMS? After the 1981-82 Santa Clara spraying, referred to above, gardens in the area sprayed with malathion had more white flies, aphids, and mites, than did unsprayed gardens. Steve Dreistat and Donald Dahlsten, in Environment (1986), observed that, "Malathion-bait sprays adversely affect pollinators such as honey bees." and, "Malathion is highly toxic to aquatic organisms...approximately 2000 mosquito fish (gambusia) in Mission Creek were killed." It should be noted in passing that the Orange County Vector Control Districts stocks flood control channels with these fish to control mosquitos. IS MALATHION HARMLESS AT THE CONCENTRATION USED IN SPRAYING? Dr. Marc Lappe', the principal author of a report entitled "Assessment of Health Risks from the Proposed Aerial Application of Malathion in Santa Clara County" prepared by the California Department of Health Services (1980), refused to sign the final version, charging that it misrepresented his findings. He stated, "various studies have suggested several potential adverse chronic health effects from exposure to malathion. These risks include teratogenicity, induction of genetic changes in germ cells, and perhaps long term effects on the nervous system. To my knowledge, none of this information has been made available to the public...I have never reached a decision as to what a safe exposure level is. For these same reasons, the World Health Organization declined to set a 'safe' limit for malathion in occupation settings. There have been omissions in the testing of this pesticide and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, recognizing that fact, has ordered further studies concerning the long term chronic effect of malathion exposure." ARE THERE OTHER MEANS BY WHICH THE MEDFLY CAN BE CONTROLLED? There are about one million insect species, and only about 100 cause 90% of the damage to food crops. The ideal control would affect only the target insect species, and a number of such controls are available. Sterile male fruitflies are being released, and the number should increase. Chemical sex attractants are now available commercially for 30 major insect pests, including Japanese Beetles. Such species specific chemical attractants, or pheromones, should be developed for the medfly. Other biological controls could include the introduction of predators, pathogens, parasites, or viruses that affect the medfly. Basic research in entomology should be initiated or accelerated by the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Finally, a program of education that emphasizes personal responsibility for limiting the spread of the medfly should be initiated immediately.' Local elected officials, the Orange County Agriculture Department, and the State Department of Food and Agriculture must cooperate with citizens of Orange County in this effort. Res. No. 6110 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE 3 ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the` City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular adjourned meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of January 19 90 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: MacAllister, Winchell , Green, Mays, Bannister, Silva, Erskine NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ' City Clerk and ex-offitAo Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California