Photobucket


La Vida Locavore
 Subscribe in a reader
Follow La Vida Locavore on Twitter - Read La Vida Locavore on Kindle

Invasive Pests and Eradication Efforts

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 23:04:47 PM PDT


Bookmark and Share
Today I was working in the garden when - surprise! - I found a brown garden snail. A thorough check of nearby lettuce yielded three more snails. I brought them inside and put them in a jar to let the kids see them. These snails are actually the same species you pay top dollar for in fancy French restaurants. I found escargots in my salad. According to a little bit of internet research, the snails were brought to America by an enterprising Frenchman hoping to make money selling escargots during the Gold Rush, but the French delicacy didn't really catch on. With his business idea a failure, he tossed out his snails... and they became an established pest here in the U.S.

This is rather interesting, in light of some research I've been doing about California's efforts to eradicate the light brown apple moth (LBAM), an invasive pest from Australia. They were found in northern California a few years ago and the state's Department of Food & Agriculture (CDFA) decided almost immediately to institute frequent aerial spraying in several counties. The CDFA's plan runs entirely counter to science for a number of reasons. First, LBAM isn't that serious a pest anywhere in the world - and the moths have many natural predators.

If you ask me, the brown garden snail is a much more serious pest, and it's also invasive, even if it's not as recent a newcomer as the LBAM. But instead of blanketing the entire state - including densely populated urban areas - with pesticide, there's a quick and easy solution for the brown garden snails. Actually, there are several. In my own yard, I'm releasing decollate snails, which prey on garden snails. Traps using beer to drown the snails work pretty well too. And I'd much rather suffer a bit of damage from either a moth or a snail than see the entire area where I live doused with pesticides. You could easily use the same non-toxic tactics to deal with LBAM, like creating habitat for its predators in agricultural areas.

Jill Richardson :: Invasive Pests and Eradication Efforts
The real question isn't which pest is worse, but why our government gets to decide which invasive pests are serious and which aren't, and which ones should be eradicated. Especially because scientists have shown that almost no pest has ever been eradicated in the entire world. At a talk I attended a few weeks ago, entomologist James Carey told of ONE pest he'd heard of that was successfully eradicated. It was a pest in New Zealand that was only dispersed within a half square-mile area and to get rid of it, they sprayed and sprayed and sprayed again many, MANY times.

A National Academy of Science panel found that the USDA "did not conduct a thorough and balanced" scientific analysis when it classified the LBAM as a major pest. They also did not test the safety of Checkmate, the pesticide they chose to spray, (a pesticide that is manufactured by Suterra, a company owned by Stewart and Linda Resnick, who are major campaign donors to a number of politicians within the state) and ignored previous research that found safety problems with that particular spray. And they didn't do a very good job even making sure that the spray was evenly mixed and would be evenly dispersed in a way that would be effective on the moths. Initially, they didn't even want to bother with Environmental Impact Reports either. When they did spray, in Monterey, they said that the spray would not effect the marine sanctuary... but it did.

As of now, aerial spraying is not planned, but spraying from the ground is, along with use of pesticide laden twist ties. Ground spraying is not as innocent as it sounds, if it will be anything like recent spraying for the gypsy moth in Ojai, CA. In Ojai, the spray crews brought cops and warrants and sprayed private property, even against the wishes of residents. In the case of Ojai, they sprayed Bt, a pesticide widely used in organic agriculture. But while state spraying is upsetting for environmentalists and gardeners (and using Bt instead of other, more toxic sprays might reduce opposition), it actually made some people sick. When the state decides to spray, they don't care if you've got asthma, and they're going to spray you anyway, even if it makes you sick. You can hear testimonies from those who were sprayed in Ojai in this video.

In a bankrupt state like California, spraying for LBAM is not just a violation of our rights and a display of the government's flagrant disregard for science, it's also a tremendous waste of taxpayer money.

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

the chemical truck pulled up accross the st yesterday (4.00 / 3)
to spray my neighbors lawn. His lawn is "perfect" and I know he doesn't like what I do or my style of gardening. I had no idea how many chemicals my husband used in gardening til after he died. I was appalled.

I recently saw that Monarch butterflies have been affected because pesticides have affected milkweed
http://www.monarchwatch.org/wa...

I just ordered milk weed seeds on ebay and planted them.I'm building a butterfly garden.


YouTube lets me down. (4.00 / 2)
YouTube has no videos showing a decollate snail capturing and eating a brown garden snail. Shucks.

I ask again, how do these things find you? Maybe the snails have been in your yard for years, but if not, their ability to seek out a garden piques my curiosity.

How long has Patrick lived in that house? Has he seen garden snails there before now?

Might the garden snails be what eat the potato leaves?

Do you see worms when you dig in the garden now?

Interesting wiki links.


too bad I don't have a video camera (4.00 / 2)
bc I've got 4 captured snails and I fully plan to stick one of the predator snails in with them and watch what happens.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

[ Parent ]
The Ojai case is a lttle more involved (3.25 / 4)
There was a Dr who claimed to treat patients who were susceptible to pesticides.  I attended several meetings of the No-pesticide group and there was a determined few who somehow knew that any pesticide was bad regardless if the pesticide was non-toxic.

When I explained how a non-toxic pesticide could not effect the human nervous system the good Dr begged to differ even though he had to admit there was no real neurological pathway to be disrupted.

Some of the Ojai residents decided to pour scalding hot water on the trunks of their trees to kill the gypsy moth larva, without thinking of the permanent damage done to the cambium layer of the tree.  With the exception of a these few people almost everyone in the Ojai valley supported the spraying of BT to kill the gypsy moth before they did real serous damage to the trees in Ojai.

Those who exhibited medical symptoms in Ojai were really just suffering from histrionics brought on by the false claims of the quack Dr.

The real story of aerial spraying on CA runs trough a member of the Cal Citrus Research Board, Ted Batkin.   He's the unsung hero of ending malathion spraying in CA.  Ted spent years reworking the IPM program of releasing sterile flies to disrupt mating of harmful pest.  He even discovered that the sterile flies that were being raised were a species from the 1950's which no longer had much of an effect harmful fruit flies in the 1990's.

As for the pesticides used for the LBAM, they were spraying pheromone disruptors not pesticides,the same products used by organic farmers for years.

Decollate snails are the bomb but they take a few years to build up a population to control the brown snails.  The decollates need ground cover to breed so mulch is important around the garden.


thanks (4.00 / 1)
some people who oppose pesticides suffer from histrionics and some don't. In the case of LBAM spraying, it's pheromones they want to spray but there's been a lot of talk about the "inert" ingredients in the spray. Also another issue is particle size, apparently. And in the case of a person with allergies... you can be allergic to things like eggs or strawberries or cats that are absolutely harmless to most people, but if the state decided to spray cat dander on everyone because it was harmless and non-toxic, it would make you sick. Isn't it the same if you're allergic to something in a pesticide or pheromone?

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

[ Parent ]
don't buy the industry greenwash! (4.00 / 1)
Just because the government and industries call something organic, doesn't make it so. So-called "organic" pesticide products contain a large percentage of synthetic ingredients, which are almost always kept secret because of trade secret laws. Mind you, the industry is perfectly capable of finding out what's in competing manufacturer's products. The secrets are being kept from us, the public. Those are the so-called "inerts" people are talking about.

Aside from the secret ingredients, the "active" ingredients in so-called "pheromone" pesticides are not organic either, but are synthetic chemicals.

"Pheromone" pesticides are designed to be constantly present in the environment, regardless of application method, whether by air or ground, whether sprayed or applied in twist ties or traps. Both industry and government agencies describe this process as "saturating" areas where the chemicals are used. This constitutes chronic exposure to all who frequent the area where these chemicals are used, whether in a residential area or in an agricultural field.

The limited acute testing of LBAM "pheromone" products, which was ordered by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2008, revealed serious safety concerns, including discolored organs in exposed test animals, and effects on the immune system. Dr. Ann Haiden wrote up a good summary about these tests:

http://drhaiden.com/wp-content...

It is also relevant to note that another type of synthetic "pheromone" pesticide, disparlure, which is used in gypsy moth programs, has been shown to persist in the human body for at least 17 years, as was shown by a scientist who was chronically exposed to that chemical:

http://bigagbigchem.org/babc/L...

Incidentally, as of January 1, 2010, the Department of Pesticide Regulation lists LBAM "pheromone" products on the list of pesticide products prohibited from use in schools and child care facilities:

http://apps.cdpr.ca.gov/school...

As for Bt products, while they may be "approved" for use in "organic" farming by law, the product that was used in the Ojai Valley for the Gypsy Moth Program in 2009 was classified "restricted", requiring many prior strategies before such use is allowed under even the USDA's shamefully diluted organic standards, including an "Organic System Plan", which was most certainly not produced for the residential area where this was forced on people. You can read more about that here:

http://dontspraycalifornia.org...

It is appalling to me that "OrganicGeorge" would claim to know better about the health crisis caused by the spraying in the Ojai Valley, than those who suffered from it and the physician he met.

Here's a toxicological profile of Bt, that shows a history of injury:

http://www.pesticide.org/bacil...

And in New Zealand, thousands were sickened by Bt, resulting in a people's inquiry into the injuries:

http://www.peoplesinquiry.co.nz/

Pesticides, just like any other word ending in -cide, is about causing death, whether quickly on contact, or slowly by causing disease or disrupting mating. And death and disease never only befall the "target" organism.

There is no safe use of pesticides!


[ Parent ]
Thanks... (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for your participation, thanks for the information and thanks for your links.

But please, there's no need for this -

It is appalling to me that "OrganicGeorge" would claim to know better about the health crisis caused by the spraying in the Ojai Valley, than those who suffered from it and the physician he met.

Even though I've disagreed with George myself on a thing or two in the past, he's a long-time contributing member here (and a very long-time member of the organic community) who deserves our respect.

I'm assuming you didn't mean to put George's name in "ScareQuotes".  That's all I wanted to say, thank you...

:)


[ Parent ]
Actually in organics you cannot get a material OMRI (3.00 / 3)
approved without listing all ingredients including inerts.  
The organic community fought long and hard for to make sure we have that info. http://www.omri.org/

I'm not sure how you can dispute my observations since you were not in the meetings in Ojai, I lived there for 20 years and in a town of 8,000 people you get to know which people are rational and which are prone to ignore facts. The same people who claimed to have physical symptoms after the spraying were also patients of the Dr. who was treating them, in effect their symptoms became a self-fulling prophecy of their beliefs.

Having been in organics for over 20 years I've helped to covert thousands of acres of conventional farming to organics.  I am very anti-pesticide, anti-CAFO's and pro-farm laborer rights.

However I arm myself with facts not propaganda. If already read most of what you posted and it lacks professional rigor.  Notice I did not say "scientific" knowing what a loaded word it is in discussion like this. Wanting something to be correct is a long way from being correct.

I grew up in conventional Ag in Florida where we used every nasty Ag chemical you can imagine, DDT, Temic, Malathion, Sevin, Lead Arsenic, you name we used it.  Any one of these products could have caused my cancer, but there is no direct linkage, so I don't claim that these chemicals were responsible,  but I can't rule them out.

I respect your passion however you are wrong on the facts.


[ Parent ]
cyber-etiquette oops, but also respect victims of pesticide poisoning (4.00 / 1)
I did not realize that quotations around pseudonyms are considered offensive punctuation. Thank you for the lesson in cyber-etiquette, JayinPortland, and my apologies for inadvertently violating it. Quite unintended, I assure you.

OrganicGeorge, the OMRI link you provided does not lead to any specific information regarding so-called inert ingredients. If you have access to the "inerts" of pesticide products that are considered "organic", please share resources where the public may gain access to them as well.

I do not claim to be a professional of any sort, but this hardly prevents me from being capable of doing research and understanding scientific evidence. Claiming to debunk other people's health problems, or lack thereof, based on personal opinions about them, or observations during meetings with some of them and one of their physicians, is not exactly a testament to either science nor professionalism; nor is insinuating that my research is propaganda, while ignoring the vast references to independent science, particularly in the toxicology of Bt that I posted, and providing no evidence of the elusive facts you say you arm yourself with.

While I sympathize with your battle with cancer, and appreciate that you recognize that it cannot be ruled out that pesticides may have been the cause, there are many other more immediate symptoms of pesticide injury, where the cause and effect are far more obvious. As a victim of pesticide poisoning, I cannot help but be offended that you ridicule people as suffering from "hystrionics", instead of leaving open the possibility that you may not have enough information to make such a sweeping judgment, and recognizing that you are not in a position to rule out pesticides as the cause of their suffering either.

Bt and synthetic "pheromones" are both legally categorized as pesticides, and considering that you downplay the dangers of these products, it is difficult for me to take seriously your characterization of yourself as being "very anti-pesticide". Is your apparent defense of these products limited to theoretical argument, or do you use these products yourself, and counsel others to use them as well?


[ Parent ]
..."I do not claim to be a professional of any sort,"... (3.00 / 3)
It shows in your inability to discern the difference in formal language used in science. A weed is anything that grows were you don't want it to grow, so a rose in a field of veggies is a weed.

Any product that is registered to be used in Ag is categorized a a pesticide when it is used to control a weed or pest.  Need oil is a registered pesticide, http://www.docstoc.com/docs/13...  but it's hardly a toxic material.

Again I admire you passion but you need to do the hard work of researching before you make claims that can be easily refuted.  

I suggest you read the OMRI pages very carefully or maybe contact them directly they are very helpful and friendly.

My cancer battle is over, I managed to survive and I thank you for your concerns.


[ Parent ]
Clearly respect is not on the agenda here (4.00 / 1)
It's unfortunate that in "refuting" my research, which I did come by through hard work, you do not share any of your own, OrganicGeorge.

Calling people hysterical or not professional is certainly a common approach to avoiding actually responding to an argument, but it hardly contributes to open and honest discussion.


[ Parent ]
Sharing (4.00 / 1)
I logged in here March 13, 2009. Since then, OrganicGeorge has never substantiated an assertion, to the best of my memory, although I certainly could have missed a few examples if they exist.

[ Parent ]
I've been involved in organics since 1987 (1.00 / 1)
Which means I made scores of public comments, and have been quoted or published many, many times in both trade publications and major newspapers from coast to coast.

In those 20+ years not one person have ever accused me of not having my data correct or that I manufactured my data. Lots of people have disagreed with my conclusions but never my facts.

But somehow I have managed to expose myself to you, in less than one year, as a charlatan and a fraud.

I congratulate you for your hard work and now everyone can feel free to ignore anything I say or print.

What a relief.  


[ Parent ]
sorry for your hurt feelings, but (4.00 / 1)
I didn't say you are a charlatan. I didn't say you are a fraud. I didn't say you manufacture data. I didn't say you generaly, or you in one or more specific instances, are wrong. And it's been more than one year.

I did say, to enlighten a new commenter who has no history with you, that you don't substantiate your assertions. Backing up what you say is not your practice. Helping guide readers to good sources for further information is not your habit. Even when I have specifically asked you to provide links, you have refused my polite request.

Now that you remind me, the fact that nobody questions you does not mean your facts are invariably correct. Ir might just mean that you are obnoxious.

The fact is, we generally accept what you say because of your long experience. It is precisely because of your experience that I expect you to be able to not only provide backup for what you write, but to provide better backup than we who do not have your long (and wide and deep) experience.

Whine away, organoboy.


[ Parent ]
Providing links (4.00 / 1)
Let's consider the rationale for taking the trouble to look up and provide links. Providing links is a pain in the butt, I know, but it's a valuable service.

A link almost always directs a reader to a source article that contains more information and more context. Furthermore, that source article often contains links, or perhaps just references, to other related and useful material. In cases where a commenter provided not just facts but also an interpretation of the facts, providing a link might enable readers to arrive at different interpretations. In cases where one commenter's attention was attracted by one particular element at the source, readers who follow the link might find other things of equal or more interest.

Yada yada. Point is, I can't begin to adequately convey the number of LVL discussions that have been enhanced and enlarged because a commenter provided a link. Subsequent to one person posting a link, other readers chime in with other links, more information, other and perhaps better ideas, and maybe the discussion veers in a different but productive direction that the original commenter hadn't thought of.

The only downside I can think of is, for example, sometimes I feel bad when I ask a question and someone (often JayinPortland) provides a link and then I feel bad because I realize I could have found the answer myself if I had the wit or will. Aside from that, it's all good. And Jay, and Jill, and Joanne, and LeeN, and all the rest of you guys, I always appreciate the help.


[ Parent ]
pheromone disruptors (0.00 / 0)
they were spraying pheromone disruptors not pesticides,the same products used by organic farmers for years

Do organic farmers use (E)-11-Tetradecen-1-yl acetate and (E,E)-9,11-Tetradecadien-1-yl acetate? If yes, do they use CheckMate formulations?


[ Parent ]
"pheromone" products "approved" for organics (4.00 / 1)
I don't have a conclusive answer to your questions, count, but the following may answer them partially:

Synthetic "pheromone" pesticides in general are "approved" for organic agriculture under the USDA National Organics Program. See the USDA NOP substances list at the following link, though I could not find a list of specific products:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop

OMRI also approves the use of some "pheromone" products, though with restrictions. The LBAM "pheromone" is not specifically listed in the most recent OMRI products list, nor is any Checkmate formulation of any kind. The OMRI generic materials list is not downloadable without subscription, so I don't know if these specific chemicals are listed there. It is my understanding that OMRI's list is not necessarily complete:
http://www.omri.org/omri-lists

(E,E)-9,11-Tetradecadien-1-yl acetate, the synthetic chemical that mimics the LBAM pheromone, was initially exempted to be used only as part of the USDA/CDFA "emergency" LBAM Program in California in 2007:
http://eastbaypesticidealert.o...

Since then the LBAM "pheromone" has been registered by the EPA, and is now theoretically on the market:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/...

However, Checkmate LBAM-F, has been pulled off the shelf altogether.

Some pesticide regulations vary from state to state, and even more so internationally, but you can see the products with (E,E)-9,11-Tetradecadien-1-yl acetate, all of which also contain (E)-11-Tetradecen-1-yl acetate,  and their registration status, according to the California Department of Pesticide Regulations, at the following link. They do not obviously specify whether they are considered organic, though perhaps some of the codes in these documents do:

(E,E)-9, 11-TETRADECADIEN-1-YL ACETATE (5966)
http://apps.cdpr.ca.gov/cgi-bi...

The other chemical,(E)-11-Tetradecen-1-yl acetate, is mixed with synthetic "pheromones" targeting various leafrollers, including LBAM. Checkmate OLR-F, which contains this chemical, and is the other formulation used during the LBAM aerial spraying, remains on the market.

You can see the products with (E)-11-Tetradecen-1-yl acetate, and their registration status according to CDPR at the following link. All the products from the list of products with (E,E)-9,11-Tetradecadien-1-yl acetate are also included, because they contain both:

E-11-TETRADECEN-1-YL ACETATE (5022)
http://apps.cdpr.ca.gov/cgi-bi...

The synthetic "pheromone" products still on the table for use in the LBAM program specifically, most of which are listed in the previous links, are: Ground applications of Hercon Disrupt Bio-Flakes LBAM, Iscatech SPLAT LBAM, Isomate LBAM twist ties, as well as LBAM traps, which may have a slightly different chemical mixture, but all of which are specifically designed to constantly "saturate" (industry terminology) the environment. Other pesticides in the Program are Btk and spinosad formulations that are mixed with undisclosed, synthetic "inerts". Massive releases of Trichogramma wasps and irradiated and chemically-dyed LBAM are also part of the Program.

I know that one of these products, SPLAT, comes in two versions, one specifying it is "organic", though this product is not included in the previous lists of the CDPR:
http://www.iscatech.com/exec/c...  

I would gather from this that it should not be assumed that all "pheromone" products are "approved for organics".


[ Parent ]
application (0.00 / 0)
If you select the active registrations and recover the full product information reports from this link, don't several of the products appear to be approved for aerial spraying as well as spraying from ground-based equipment?

[ Parent ]
"pheromones" can be applied a variety of ways (4.00 / 1)
I've done quite a bit of research into the products and methods of the USDA/CDFA LBAM Program itself, but not so much into what LBAM products growers may be using. I know that Checkmate, Disrupt, and SPLAT can be applied by both air and ground, though aerial applications of these products have been eliminated from the government LBAM Program.

The difference between them are what the "pheromones" are mixed with. Checkmate is no longer used in the program at all, but the formulation they used was in capsules. Disrupt on the other hand comes in flakes. SPLAT, "Specialized Pheromone and Lure Application Technology", is a whole other animal. It's a thicker product, that can be applied in a number of ways, including literally splattering it onto utility poles and trees from an electric grease gun out of truck windows, drive-by style.

Then there are the twist ties, which are of course applied manually to trees, bushes, and fences, as well as the traps, which may contain the chemicals soaked into a septum or a twist tie of sorts.

The goal, regardless of application method, is the same: to "saturate" the area with the "pheromone". This really is a very important point. Most pesticides are designed to kill, then to break down. While this can also take a long time and continue to cause injury, the big difference is that "pheromones" are specifically designed to be constantly present in the environment. If they are not, they don't work. So regardless of application method, anyone living or working in an area where "pheromones" are used, is chronically exposed to them.

USDA/CDFA shifted from an eradication, to a control program for LBAM, finally admitting that it's here to stay and can't be eradicated. But since this harmless moth continues to be classified as an "actionable pest", requiring quarantines, the concern many of us have is that this program will likely become a permanent program, like the gypsy moth "Slow the Spread" program back East. Incidentally, one of the products used in that program is another version of Disrupt, sprayed aerially. More about that here: http://www.dontspraycalifornia...

People continue to organize against the LBAM Program throughout California. Legal action is planned in the coming days, and there is also a deadline for last comments regarding the USDA-APHIS response to the reclassification petitions, ending May 14. For more information about both the lawsuit, and efforts to reclassify LBAM, as well as about these "pheromone" products, please see: http://dontspraycalifornia.org...


[ Parent ]
Just out of curiosity (4.00 / 2)
how do these synthetic pheromones vary from the natural pheromones released by the instects themselves?

What I'm curious about is the differences in effect on other organisms (humans and other mammals, birds, reptiles, insects) and concentrations. Synthetic aerosol vs aerosol released by the insects themselves.

I'm not so curious about the pheromones released by a surface application or twist tie/trap deployment as I am an aerosol deployment. Even though the aerosol release would be at a higher concentration than the insects themselves release or that surface applications release, and an aerosol release would dissipate and move from the release site to other sites depending on prevailing winds at the elevation of release, I'm assuming that there is concern that concentrations of the artificial pheromone would cause dammage to non target organisms?

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
I totally don't have answers (4.00 / 1)
my hunch is that - to start - the "inert" ingredients in the synthetic version differ from what the insects release.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

[ Parent ]
I might have parts of an answer (4.00 / 1)
In the most basic terms, synthetic "pheromones" don't come from the insect itself, but are made in a lab, so there is no natural pheromone in these products whatsoever. They may share some features in common, but they are not the same thing, so comparing concentrations is not terribly meaningful. Though the concentrations of the synthetic pesticide products are definitely by far greater than the natural pheromone that might be present in the environment.

I'm not sure that aerosol is the right concept here. Aerosol tends to be in the form of fine, sprayable, liquid particles. I'm not sure how the LBAM specifically releases its pheromone, and to what degree it resembles aerosol. But none of the synthetic LBAM "pheromone" applications fit the usual image of aerosol mist. The sprayable or pressurized applications are either in the form of flakes, mixed with an adhesive and thickener, or in the form of a goo made with a clay or wax.

If I understand you right, I think you are asking about drift, and possible damage from it.

In terms of damage, there is concern about the synthetic "pheromones" itself, as well as about the so-called "inert" ingredients and additives.

The synthetic LBAM "pheromone" has had very limited testing, so any safety claims would be made in the absence of data, and as such meaningless. In general pesticides are registered in spite of a lot of unknowns, and when you look through USDA environmental documents you'll find many instances of such unknowns openly admitted. As little as is know about the human health effects, even less is known about the impact these chemicals have on the rest of the ecosystem.

The synthetic LBAM "pheromone" has been tested only for a few acute symptoms, and those showed some disturbing and unexplained effects on organs and immune systems of test animals. Hundreds reported getting sick from the aerial applications, and some have also reported getting sick from the twist ties, as well as the traps.

There have been no tests for chronic exposure, and no testing for cancer, endocrine disruption, central nervous system damage, or any such longterm health effects. We do know that another synthetic "pheromone" pesticide, disparlure, used for gypsy moths, has been found to persist in the human body for at least 17 years. Applications of the gypsy moth version of Disrupt flakes was found to cause necrosis on leaf tissue, apparently caused either by the adhesive or the "pheromone" itself.

The so-called "inert" ingredients, which are not being disclosed, are also of concern. There were a number of toxic ingredients in the formulation that was sprayed over Monterey and Santa Cruz in 2007. The capsules were small enough to get permanently lodged in the lungs. They were also the size of pollen, and such encapsulated pesticides have been found in bee hives. After the spraying in Santa Cruz, rain washed the chemicals into the sea, and the worst red tide in decades occurred. The spray contained surfactants as well as urea, both of which are known to contribute to red tides. Hundreds of dead birds washed ashore, with their weatherproofing apparently stripped off by surfactants.

In terms of drift, it is not just aerosol applications that drift. Those capsules they sprayed in 2007 drifted for at least 3.3 miles outside of the target area, according to the Department of Pesticide Regulations. But even applications that are not done by spraying or some other pressurized method drift. Think of how an unpleasant stationary smell in a corner can permeate an entire room. That's a kind of drift. And these "pheromone" products are designed to be time-released, to continuously volatilize, and to be at saturation level in the environment. Those fumes will move through the atmosphere for some distance. How far, and how the different applications may or may not vary, are still more untested unknowns. If you calculate rate of use for the different products, you will find that the twist ties are used at a much higher rate per acre than the aerial spraying:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plan...

To really blow your mind, and put a whole other wrinkle on the concept of pesticide drift, you might find it interesting that the mad scientists of big ag have actually released fruit flies, doused with the LBAM "pheromone" pesticide, in Australia:
http://fw.farmonline.com.au/ne...

USDA is involved with this creepy "technology" as well. It's research being done as part of the LBAM Program:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/resear...

Fundamentally, as we're learning more about chemical poisoning, exposure rates are becoming less and less relevant. Even seemingly small amounts of a chemical can do lasting damage, and in the case of the nonmonotonic dose response of such chemicals as endocrine disruptors, repeated smaller exposures can actually do worse damage than a single larger exposure:
http://citybelt.typepad.com/Lo...  


[ Parent ]
red tides and surfactants (0.00 / 0)
A comment about red tides in general, something for readers to bear in mind:

A general property of red tides is, the algae generate surfactants that affect birds. Death from hypothermia is a typical result.

I don't know anything about the 2007 incidents, and my remark isn't about that one way or another. Just trying to add to the general knowledge.


[ Parent ]
inert (0.00 / 0)
I wish, without hope of success, that the word "inert" would disappear from these discussions. "Inert" in quotes conveys appropriate caution and I do that myself. Even so, it doesn't seem like best practice, and the practice isn't scrupulously adhered to.

Government agencies, politicians, and lobbyists are fond of calling toxic chemicals inert, but even the MSDS sheets from many manufacturors use "other" instead of "inert".


[ Parent ]
Spray and other protocols are put in place usually (4.00 / 3)
to protect crops as well as trade, both interstate and international. I don't know how much you've studied the subject, but if you haven't already you ought to dig into the regulations and other issues regarding international ag trade, rules, regs, invasive species that have been spreading around the world.

Quite a few of the macro and micro fauna as well as diseases introduced into the USA have been done inadvertantly through trade.

Up here, a new fruit fly was detected either last year or the year before, which has the potential to damage the fruit growers in Oregon, and was probably brought in by trade.

A few years ago a very large shipment of christmas trees was stopped at the US Canadian border. The trees were from an Oregon grower and had bannana slugs in them. Native here and not too much of a problem to christmas tree growers, but they don't want them in Canada.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


Beer traps... (4.00 / 3)
I fell in one myself once.  Not pleasant...

;-P


Personally I think beer traps border on alchohol abuse (4.00 / 3)
but I supose that if a person is to use them, then the cheapest beer available is permissible. Certianly not going to share my good beer with any rabble rousing molluscs....

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

[ Parent ]
The trouble with molluscs (4.00 / 2)
rabble rousing molluscs

They make too much noise when they party.


[ Parent ]
agreed (4.00 / 2)
rather than wasting some good beer on our snails, I'm putting the decollates in the garden to take care of the problem.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

[ Parent ]
I guess that new snail you're using is native? (4.00 / 3)


Vote for yourself at www.ni4d.us!

ummm, guess you didn't (4.00 / 2)
follow the links.

[ Parent ]
nope (4.00 / 3)
it's not native. but it's permitted to be released in CA.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

[ Parent ]
CheckMate (4.00 / 2)
CheckMate LBAM-F label (August 2007)

CheckMate LBAM-F MSDS (August 2007)

I've read many MSDS sheets. This is among the shoddiest. Some wild and wonderfuls:

The toxicity of the product is determined by the toxicity of the pheromone active ingredient.

Bullshit. Just bullshit. The toxicity of the product is determined by the product.

INHALATION: Due to product form exposure not expected.

Inhalation exposure is not expected from spraying. Right, got it.

CHRONIC: Long-term studies on the active ingredients have not been done, however, no adverse effects expected.

No comment. I SAID NO COMMENT, DAMNIT!

While this information and recommendations set forth are believed to be accurate as of the date hereof, Suterra LLC
makes no warranty with respect hereto and disclaims all liability from reliance thereon.

CheckMate ORL-F label (December 2003)

CheckMate ORL-F MSDS (November 2001)

Not worst, same as the first.

CheckMate LBAM-F ingredient list (October 2007)

Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O'Farrell lifted a restraining order yesterday after determining that the ingredients used in the pheromone Checkmate LBAM-F made by Oregon-based Suterra did not contain chemicals known to be harmful to the public.

See below.

MSDS sheets for CheckMate LBAM-F: inert ingredients

Those are for "other" ingredients, not "inert" ingredients. The inquisitive reader, after perusing those data sheets, might wonder how Judge O'Farrell determined

Checkmate LBAM-F made by Oregon-based Suterra did not contain chemicals known to be harmful to the public

It's obvious to me that he knows because Suterra told him so.


Yum, snails! (4.00 / 3)
Back in the olden days when I lived in So. Cal., I had a friend who worked at a Scott's chemical fertilizer testing station. I was raising chickens and he complained about all the snails they were having on their grapevines and his boss had told him to hand-pick all the snails off the vines.

So I had a bright idea that my 35 chickens would LOVE snails and he collected a bunch and brought them over so I let the snails go in the henhouse. The hens wouldn't eat a single one (ducks do, however), and here's hundreds of snails escaping up the walls of the henhouse! I didn't want any of those damn things in my yard, so I collected them all and put them in a big aquarium I had sitting around and went to the library to figure out how to prepare them.

What I did was put wheat bran in the bottom of the aquarium and also fed them lettuce and cornmeal. I had to clean out the aquarium every day for a week. Then I just gave them water for the next week. Then when they were finally cooked they were delicious. But all in all it was a lot of work.  


funny! (4.00 / 2)
the thought of eating them had crossed my mind. Right now they are in a jar, eating and pooping. Snail poop, yuck. Seems like the process for making escargots is more work than it's worth for 4 measly snails. Also, for the amt of snail meat you get out of it, it seems like simply an excuse to eat butter and garlic. And really, if it's butter and garlic I want to eat, I can just eat it. Maybe with some pasta.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

[ Parent ]
we have decollate snails here (4.00 / 2)
Neon Vincent helped me ID them. I expect somebody imported them. I think they may have taken out native gastropods, at least in the city. We have no other snails here, or even slugs. But there are native snails in the region (SE NM).

You can never do just one thing.


"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi


The thing about the snails reminds me of the song (4.00 / 3)
about The Little Old Lady Who Swallowed A Fly....

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

[ Parent ]
Political Activism Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Notable Diaries
- The 2007 Ag Census
- Cuba Diaries
- Mexico Diaries
- Bolivia Diaries
- Philippines Diaries
- My Visit to Growing Power
- My Trip to a Hog Confinement
- Why We Grow So Much Corn and Soy
- How the Chicken Gets to Your Plate

Search




Advanced Search


Blog Roll
Blogs
- Beginning Farmers
- Chews Wise
- City Farmer News
- Civil Eats
- Cooking Up a Story
- Cook For Good
- DailyKos
- Eating Liberally
- Epicurean Ideal
- The Ethicurean
- F is For French Fry
- Farm Aid Blog
- Food Politics
- Food Sleuth Blog
- Foodgirl.ca
- Foodperson.com
- Ghost Town Farm
- Goods from the Woods
- The Green Fork
- Gristmill
- GroundTruth
- Irresistable Fleet of Bicycles
- John Bunting's Dairy Journal
- Liberal Oasis
- Livable Future Blog
- Marler Blog
- My Left Wing
- Not In My Food
- Obama Foodorama
- Organic on the Green
- Rural Enterprise Center
- Take a Bite Out of Climate Change
- Treehugger
- U.S. Food Policy
- Yale Sustainable Food Project

Reference
- Recipe For America
- Eat Well Guide
- Local Harvest
- Sustainable Table
- Farm Bill Primer
- California School Garden Network

Organizations
- The Center for Food Safety
- Center for Science in the Public Interest
- Community Food Security Coalition
- The Cornucopia Institute
- Farm Aid
- Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
- Food and Water Watch
-
National Family Farm Coalition
- Organic Consumers Association
- Rodale Institute
- Slow Food USA
- Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
- Union of Concerned Scientists

Magazines
- Acres USA
- Edible Communities
- Farmers' Markets Today
- Mother Earth News
- Organic Gardening

Book Recommendations
- Animal, Vegetable, Miracle
- Appetite for Profit
- Closing the Food Gap
- Diet for a Dead Planet
- Diet for a Small Planet
- Food Politics
- Grub
- Holistic Management
- Hope's Edge
- In Defense of Food
- Mad Cow USA
- Mad Sheep
- The Omnivore's Dilemma
- Organic, Inc.
- Recipe for America
- Safe Food
- Seeds of Deception
- Teaming With Microbes
- What To Eat

User Blogs
- Beyond Green
- Bifurcated Carrot
- Born-A-Green
- Cats and Cows
- The Food Groove
- H2Ome: Smart Water Savings
- The Locavore
- Loving Spoonful
- Nourish the Spirit
- Open Air Market Network
- Orange County Progressive
- Peak Soil
- Pink Slip Nation
- Progressive Electorate
- Trees and Flowers and Birds
- Urbana's Market at the Square


Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Powered by: SoapBlox