ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG!
Help us protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
GAO Flunks Some States on Tap Water Quality Monitoring
GAO Knocks EPA Tap Water Monitoring
Reusing Your Gray Water: State Laws Vary for Homeowners
GAO to EPA: Improve Implementation of Safe Drinking Water Act
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Toxins in our Kids' Foods: Where is the FDA?
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Fluoride in Your Water: How much is too much?
Borax: Not the Green Alternative It's Cracked Up to Be
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
« Little yellow flags? Not in Connecticut | Main | How to choose a better sunscreen »
Spray? We never wanted to spray!
In April, I told you about how citizen protests had forced the state to rethink its plans to spray an artificial pheremone over urban Northern California to eradicate a pest called the light brown apple moth. Now, upon further deliberation, the state has decided it won't spray after all, but will do what anti-spray forces had called for all along: Release sterile light brown apple moths, let nature take its course and the pests will die out.
It's a great victory for public health, common sense and people power. What's annoying is the state's refusal to admit that the will of the people was what forced its hand. After the decision not to spray was announced, the state's secretary of agriculture, A.G. Kawamura, wrote an op-ed (which the Chronicle dutifully printed) in which he tried to claim that was his department's idea all along:
In early 2007, we sought the advice of an international panel of scientists who are apple moth experts, and they advised us to begin emergency eradication efforts using the pheromone treatments - but they also advised a substantial investment in adapting the sterile insect technique for use against this pest.This technique eradicates an infestation by releasing large quantities of sterilized, infertile insects so that the wild population cannot reproduce. It has been successful for more than 30 years in California and around the globe against a variety of insects; indeed, it was the alternative that ended California's use of aerial Malathion treatments against the Mediterranean fruit fly.
Raising a captive insect colony and adapting the technique to the new pest are technically and biologically complex tasks, so we were advised that this work could take several years to bear fruit. Fortunately, our scientists have surprised us with a breakthrough - we now plan to begin releasing the sterile moths in early 2009.
Wait a minute, Mr. Secretary. Did you say that this safe, non-toxic method was previously used successfully against the notorious Medfly? And it worked? So why didn't you try that first this time?
No matter, says Cameron Scott of The Thin Green Line. It's a victory for the precautionary principle -- the no-brainer idea that if you don't know something is safe, don't expose people to it.
. . . [T}he change represents the victory of a "presumed dangerous until proven safe" approach to chemicals over the United States' standard "presumed safe until proven dangerous" approach. As Mark Schapiro's book, Exposed, reveals, European countries have long adopted the approach California citizens backed by demanding more proof that the pesticide caused neither immediate nor long-term damage to humans. Europe, for reasons likely including this legal bias, has better health outcomes than the United States.
Cameron Scott (and Mark Schapiro) are right to contrast U.S. policy, which allows industrial chemicals on the market without proof of safety, with the more precautionary approach of Europe. But there's a movement building in the U.S. for an even father-reaching revolution in chemical regulation. It's called the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act, and you can learn more about it here.