San Francisco committee hears sharp opposition to state plan for aerial spraying against light brown apple moth

SAN FRANCISCO ' The Government Audit and Oversight Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on April 2 took testimony from public-health officials, state agriculture officials, entomologists and dozens of residents over the California Department of Food and Agriculture's plan to apply pheromone-based pesticides across parts of the Bay Area to eradicate the light brown apple moth.

Chair Supervisor Aaron Peskin opened the hearing and said the committee would examine potential human-health impacts and alternatives before the state proceeds. The Department of Public Health, the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and CDFA described program tools, monitoring plans and planned disclosures; scientists and residents sharply questioned effectiveness and safety.

Why it matters: CDFA and federal partners say the moth threatens agriculture and could increase pesticide use and quarantines that would harm growers. Opponents say the proposed aerial program, and the microencapsulated formulations under consideration, lack adequate human-health data for dense urban populations and may leave vulnerable groups exposed.

What officials said: Dr. Rajeev Bhatia, director of environmental health at the San Francisco Department of Public Health, told the committee the city had asked CalEPA and OEHHA for comprehensive studies and had filed formal comments under the California Environmental Quality Act. "The product has not been selected," Bhatia said, and "those studies should be the subjects of full study" before an aerial program proceeds.

CDFA testimony: CDFA project director Robert Dowell described a six-part eradication strategy that includes twist-tie pheromone dispensers, spot applications of attractant-plus-insecticide (permethrin), releases of parasitic wasps and, for broad infestations, aerial pheromone disruption. Dowell said trials from New Zealand and Australia indicate pheromone disruption can sharply reduce local populations and that single treatments there have reduced populations "by up to 80 percent." He said the department would disclose selected product formulas, inert ingredients and particle-size information at least one month before any aerial application and that any product raising red flags in OEHHA or USDA reviews would be removed from consideration.

Scientific dissent: Dr. James Carey, an entomologist at UC Davis, told the committee eradication in California is unlikely and called the CDFA approach "scientifically misguided." Carey said LBAM is widespread and that small back-yard populations make biological eradication improbable: "Anything short of 100% effectiveness for each of these population pockets must be considered control and not eradication," he said.

Community testimony and complaints: Multiple residents and health advocates described respiratory and other symptoms reported after last year's spraying in Monterey and Santa Cruz. OEHHA said it had collected roughly 643 reports (later deduplicated to about 463 for analysis), with about 70 people reporting they sought medical attention and roughly 40 physician reports submitted for analysis; OEHHA said a report of its analysis was close to completion. Mike Lindbergh, who said he compiled illness reports from Monterey, described severe pediatric and elderly hospitalizations and warned that San Francisco's larger population could yield far greater numbers of complaints.

City action and next steps: Committee members amended the proposed resolutions to include language urging the City Attorney to pursue legal strategies opposing aerial spraying in San Francisco. On the amended items the committee moved items 3 and 4 (resolutions opposing aerial spraying and urging an EIR and independent OEHHA review) to the full Board with recommendation; item 1 (a separate lease item) was placed on the April 8 board agenda as a committee report; item 2 (the hearing item) was filed. The committee recorded the dispositions by unanimous consent; no roll-call vote was recorded in the transcript.

What remains unresolved: CDFA said it would identify the specific product or products and disclose inert ingredients and particle-size information prior to any aerial application, but supervisors and public commenters pressed for independent, city-level risk assessment of impacts on sensitive populations (children, elderly, people with asthma, homeless residents), clearer indemnification or liability arrangements, and stronger public-notice protocols in an urban setting. Scientists and public-health advocates urged reliance on ground-based alternatives and expanded independent study before any aerial program begins.

The hearing concluded with the committee forwarding the amended resolutions to the full Board and urging continued coordination between OEHHA, the Department of Public Health and federal partners on monitoring and reporting.