Systemic Problems Revealed by Moth Spraying

There's a profit motive behind use of insecticides
opinion by Claude Ginsburg

Anyone following the news in Washington probably knows something about the aerial pesticide spraying for Asian gypsy moths (AGMs) in Seattle's Ballard and Magnolia neighborhoods in May. The policies underlying the spraying, however, received little press.

AGM policy in the United States is set by entomologists who believe that chemical or biological agents are the only way to eliminate insect pests. Money from the USDA and pesticide manufacturers flows into universities, where those professors who advocate pesticide controls are preferentially awarded grants. Newly-trained entomologists with a spraying bent then pour out of these schools and into agriculture departments, closing the circle. Ecologically-sound pest management practices are marginalized. This is why it is difficult to find government entomologists who will recognize any remedy other than spraying for pests.

Our government operates under the assumption that pesticides are safe until proven toxic. The Washington State Department of Health is no different. The Department of Health declared the spray, Foray48B, "safe enough" to spray on our cities without determining what the long-term health consequences might be and without preparing any way to survey the health of affected citizens before and after the spraying. This same process occurs repeatedly in the U.S. and Canada. With no way to document problems, no problems are ever seen.

The media has once again set up a false debate between angry "emotional" citizens opposed to spraying on one side and Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) "scientists" warning of an infestation of AGMs that would decimate trees and plants throughout the Northwest on the other. The implication is that the opposition may be sticking its head in the sand and ignoring a potentially serious problem. This is completely false. Opponents have consistently advocated sound pest management practices and tried to educate about such practices through the media, to no avail. The constant litany from Olympia that alternatives would not work because the AGM presents an emergency situation had the effect of discounting any real consideration of alternatives. There is serious doubt that there was any emergency or even any problem.

If you talk to people who have lived through gypsy moth attacks, they will tell you that trees are defoliated initially, but almost all survive with no lasting effect. If no spraying takes place, there is never any serious defoliation after the first season. In fact, spraying is one of the least effective ways of dealing with gypsy moths. Spraying of different chemical and biological agents for over 100 years has consistently failed to halt the slow, inexorable spread of the European gypsy moth in the East. Spraying has actually been shown to increase the amount of time necessary to stabilize the moth population below the nuisance level because natural predators are simultaneously suppressed. What spraying has done is enrich various pesticide companies and agriculture departments for generations.

According to experts in the field, trapping male moths with pheromone traps, which are cheap and environmentally safe, is a more effective method of controlling the situation. AGM females fly, unlike their European cousins, but it is unlikely that they would fly farther than the nearest streetlight. There was plenty of time to decide if there was any uneradicated introduction of AGMs, but policy makers chose instead to spray after trapping only one moth. Only a few moths could have been present in Ballard, so it would have been possible to eradicate them by simply setting out enough traps to catch the males before they found a female.

The trap density used by the WSDA to catch the single male AGM was sufficient to eradicate any moth population. The spray was superfluous, and was probably ineffective, given that the first spray was done on such a windy day, in violation of the Department of Ecology permit, that little of the spray fell into the actual target zone. All three sprays were followed by heavy rain within 24 hours, negating most of their bug-killing effect. The spraying succeeded only in exposing 30,000-50,000 people to Foray48B aerosol and bringing in $600,000 in federal matching funds for the WSDA.

The decision to spray was made by Governor Locke based on political considerations and input from the WSDA. Citizen concerns were politely listened to and ignored. Only when opponents managed to generate enough negative media coverage of the spraying did Locke's staff hesitate in an effort to try to protect his image. In the background, however, loomed the large timber companies--major contributors to Locke's re-election campaign--who have no interest in protecting public health or the environment when faced with the possibility that their holdings could be damaged or quarantined by a moth infestation, no matter how unscientific or unsupported such claims might be. The constructive alternatives offered by opponents were ignored by the mainstream media in favor of simple "for or against" positions.