Posted: Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:00 AM
Related Stories:
Scientists: Save the moth
Entomologists say eradication is impossible, unnecessary
By WES SANDER
Capital Press
A state plan for eradicating the light-brown apple moth is misguided and lacks scientific backing, a panel of scientists and observers said on Tuesday, Aug. 25, at a hearing of the Senate agriculture committee.
On July 31, CDFA released for public comment a draft environmental impact report on a plan for eradicating the moth from California. The plan lays out techniques including aerial and ground spraying of insecticides and pheromones, twist ties and syrupy substances applied to trees and poles and a wasp that eats the moth's eggs.
While some agricultural interests expressed support for the program, other witnesses at the hearing questioned its necessity.
The moth is known to exist over 23,000 square miles in 15 counties in California. Witnesses dismissed the notion that eradication of a moth over such a widespread area is possible.
"There is no way that you can eradicate simultaneously in all these areas," said James Carey, professor of entomology at the University of California-Davis. "This is a huge undertaking. You wind up with this endless cycle of population reduction in one area, then you go to the next and you have a resurgence in the one you just left, and so forth."
CDFA acknowledges that the moth has yet to cause serious damage, instead citing its potential for damaging more than 250 commercial crops, including citrus, grapes and deciduous tree fruit.
Opponents of CDFA's plan criticize the agency's characterization of the moth as an invasive pest that warrants eradication, saying it has long existed in California without causing significant damage. Some contend that eradication is a reaction to trade regulations and is not justified by science.
"LBAM should be viewed less as an invasion in progress and more as an invasion that is completed," Carey said. "I consider it a fatal flaw in this EIR that it's based on the erroneous assumption that eradication is possible. It is difficult for me to overstate the difficulty of eradicating a pest that is as widespread and as entrenched as LBAM."
The hearing coincided with a series of public-input sessions conducted by CDFA around the state. No representatives of CDFA attended the hearing. Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura was invited but did not attend.
"There is no need to eradicate the LBAM from the state of California as it's considered a minor pest of little concern or consequence," said Daniel Harder, executive director of the arboretum at the University of California-Santa Cruz.
Staff writer Wes Sander is based in Sacramento. E-mail: wsander@capitalpress.com.
Comments made about this article
Posted By: Roy Upton On: 8/27/2009
Title: USDA Senior Eradication Expert: Eradication Impossible
I think it is worthy to note that among those testifying was Dr. Derrell Chambers, a senior entomologist and expert in eradication programs and pheromones. After 44 years of working on these types of programs as senior USDA scientist and consultant to USDA and CDFA, he is unequivocal in his opinion that "eradication of LBAM is a virtual impossibility." I believe it is also worthy to note that testimony included the fact that there are more parasitoids against LBAM in California than there are against our own native tortricids, like the closely related orange tortrix, which only has a single parasitoid. To date, 13 native parasitoids against LBAM have been identified by Dr. Nick Mills of UC Berkeley. The fact that LBAM has been in Hawaii for more than 100 years and has never had a single report of crop or native flora damage from LBAM and, prior to the USDA quarantines, no export had ever been stopped for LBAM, suggests that California farmers and nurseries are suffering needlessly from this program.
Posted By: Glen Chase On: 8/27/2009
Title: MOST ACCURATE ARTICLE TO DATE
To Wes Sander: Thank you so much for this article. It sets the standard for accuracy on the subject after nearly two years of confusion regarding this apple moth and the proposed CDFA program. If the moth was a real threat, the CDFA would be able to demonstrate/document examples throughout the world where problems have occured, but CDFA cannot. If the moth could be eradicated, the CDFA would be able to demonstrate/document techniques of successful eradication somewhere in the world where this moth or moths with similar characteristics have been successfully eradicated, but CDFA cannot. The exact degree of harm that will come to people and their families from the execution of CDFA's proposed eradication program is not totally known or yet understood. However, the significance of the harm and the significance of the billions of dollars sacrificed for such a massive program is dramatically increased as we recognize that the CDFA eradication program will fail and is unnecessary. Thanks again for setting the standard on reporting on this issue. Sincerely, Professor Glen Chase