Washington Free Press article: Gypsy Moth Policy in Washington

By Claude Ginsburg. Washington Free Press, 2000

Anyone following the news in Washington probably knows something about the aerial pesticide spraying for Asian gypsy moths (AGM's) in Ballard and Magnolia in May. However, the underlying policies that caused the spraying received little press.

The US AGM policy is set by entomologists who believe that chemical or biological agents are the only way to eliminate insect pests. These bureaucrats build their careers and empires on expensive spraying programs. 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 unless proven toxic. The public health department in Washington state is no different. They 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 the affected citizens before and after the spraying. This hermetically sealed process occurs repeatedly in the US and Canada. With no way to document problems, no problems ever are seen.

The media has once again set up a false debate with angry "emotional" citizens opposed to spraying on one side, and agriculture department "scientists" who warn of an infestation of AGM's 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. They have consistently advocated sound pest management practices and tried to get these elaborated in the media, to no avail. The constant litany from Olympia that alternatives will 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 actually talk to people who have lived through gypsy moth attacks, they will tell you that initially trees are defoliated, but almost all survive with no lasting effect, and 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, and has actually been shown to increase the amount of time necessary to stabilize the moth population below the nuisance level, because natural predators are also suppressed. What it has done is enrich various pesticide 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 AGM's, instead of spraying 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 (violating the Dept. of Ecology permit), that little fell into the actual target zone. All three sprays were followed by heavy rain within 24 hours, negating most of their bug-killing effect, and only succeeding in exposing 30-50,000 people to Foray48B aerosol and getting $600,000 in federal matching funds for the WSDA.

The decision to spray was made by Governor Locke and was 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. However, in the background 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).

A disturbing parallel finally emerged between the way officials characterized spray critics as "frightening people irresponsibly" and exposing Washington (read Weyerhaeuser and Gary Locke's campaign fund) to financial ruin, and the way WTO protestors were dismissed as "afraid of change" and "against trade." As with the WTO coverage, the constructive alternatives offered by opponents were ignored by the mainstream media in favor of simple "for or against" positions.