Thursday, October 23, 2008

Secrecy Surrounds Suterra Land Sale

The City of Bend has entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement with Suterra for land at Juniper Ridge. According to earlier media reports, this purchase is for eight acres at $7 a square foot, a purchase price of $2,439,360. Juniper Ridge Partners will received a fee of 6% on this transaction initiated by Suterra, about $146,000, for some kind of ill defined services that have no documentation. The cost to the city to prepare the site is estimated to be $3.5 million, which will also serve future tenants of Juniper Ridge when the City/ODOT logjam over traffic on Highway 97 is solved. City Manager Eric King estimates this will happen in the spring of 2009.

Only four of the seven Councilors actually made it to the special Joint Session of the Bend Urban Renewal Agency and the City Council (BURA is the City Council), with Councilor Friedman attending via conference call. Councilors Abernethy and Clinton were not in attendance.

Once again a disheartening level of secrecy surrounded a transaction at Juniper Ridge. The meeting was called to order by Councilor Telfer and immediately recessed into Executive Session "to discuss real estate issues" for almost an hour. Suterra executives and EDCO director Roger Lee left he executive session early, and then the Suterra execs were summoned back into the Executive Session again by Economic Development Director John Russell. When the execs came back out 15 minutes later, they were complaining to each other about being questioned so strongly on the subject of being able to finance their project.

The Purchase and Sale Agreement was not available to the public before, during and after the vote on the agreement, and there was no public hearing held before the vote on the agreement, which passed 5-0 on the condition that Suterra provides adequate proof of financing capability to the City. There were public hearings held on the two topics regarding financing issues, specifically to allow the entire purchase price plus another $200,000 from the General Fund to be transferred to the BURA Juniper Ridge Construction Budget to build out the area. The City will also not pay itself over a million dollars in SDC's related to the Les Schwab purchase until some future date, will maintain it's $6 million line of credit until some future date, and will continue paying the $120,000 per year in interest on the line of credit.

No public comments were made. The meeting was not held at the normal time of Council meetings, but rather at 4 PM on the fourth Wednesday of the month, and virtually no public was in attendance. The three votes and all council discussion took about 20 minutes. Most questioning was by Councilor Telfer regarding taking monies from the General Fund for this project. Telfer was the only Councilor to vote no on any of the three issues. Finance Director Sonia Andrews stated that the City could increase it's line of credit by $200,000, but that it was easier to take it out of the General Fund. None of the other Councilor's seemed to take issue with this, although we all remember several hours of discussion over using $70,000 to fund the transit system.

I was told by City Attorney Pete Schannauer that there was no requirement for a public hearing on this public land sale, and that for unspecified reasons the agreement was not made available to the public prior to the special Joint Session. ORS 221.725 states that "...when a city council considers it necessary or convenient to sell real property or any interest therein, the city council shall publish a notice of the proposed sale in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, and shall hold a public hearing concerning the sale prior to the sale." Pete and Economic Development Assistant Director Jerry Mitchell assured me that I could receive a copy of agreement the next day, today. I will update this post with a link to the agreement if and when I receive it.

Suterra seems to be an excellent tenant for Juniper Ridge. According to Suterra President Steve Hartmeier the average salary is $90,000. Five to ten new jobs will be created per year, in addition to the 50 or so employees that will move from the current Suterra facility in the Columbia/Simpson area, which has almost 200,000 square feet of space empty and available already. Suterra creates pheromone-based insect control products. Suterra claims a high level of safety, although there have been reports of extensive safety issues with aerial applications in California.

This reporter has no issue with the tenant but does take issue with the process. Secrecy and extensive Executive Sessions have no place in the public process, and in fact are tightly regulated to certain issues that the City of Bend has far exceeded. This is an issue that will be further examined in the near future, as I firmly believe that the next City Council needs to become much more open, especially as the Highway 97 issue is cleared up and further lands are sold in Juniper Ridge. Also the continued significant payments to Juniper Ridge Partners for completely undocumented "services" is very troubling.


Anonymous said...

The Purchase and Sale Agreement was not available to the public before, during and after the vote on the agreement, and there was no public hearing held before the vote on the agreement, which passed 5-0 on the condition that Suterra provides adequate proof of financing capability to the City.


So where is it 24 hours later? In the Les-Schwab theft they hid the 'sale agreement', and then 24 hours slipped it into the public record.

They'll most likely do the same thing this time.

So why don't you find it, and post it, so we can tear it apart.

Given that Les Schwab got almost $10M in Knife-River cash added-value to make their 20 acres 'shovel-ready', my guess is that Suterra got the same deal, as its impossible to use the land at Juniper-Ridge, without spending $800k/acre to break-up the rock, and go to datum. Juniper-Ridge is all lava, any development there costs a fortune.

In order to 'seal' the Les Schwab deal, more money had to be spent on
'breaking the rock', than the actual land cost.

Nobody would buy this land, if it were'nt for the city doing the shove-ready. This has been the past, why should we expect it to be different now??

Anonymous said...

This one is NOT about money PUSSY, this one is about a chemical weapons plant that would be banned in california, ... But this is BEND, where we're desperate to become tomorrows LOVE-CANAL.


Suterra Plotting To Buy 1500 Acres In Bend, Oregon

Saturday 26 Jul 2008 | LBAM Spray Bay Area

I was alerted by an acquaintance to an article published in an Oregon newspaper, The Bulletin, regarding Suterra’s potential plan to purchase 1500 acres of land in Bend, Oregon to build their new pesticide factory. I’m sorry I can’t link readers to the actual article - apparently you have to have a paid subscription to access it, but here is something I know my readers will wish to understand.

A Suterra representative is quoted as follows in the news article:

“Pheremone based pesticides don’t contaminate ground water or affect other animals or kill crop damaging insects”.

This will come as news to everyone in Santa Cruz and Monterey County who saw their watershed poisoned, their wildlife and pets killed and lost their health after being exposed to aerial applications of Suterra’s pheromone-pesticide, Checkmate, in 2007.

It is simply outrageous that Suterra is making statements like this, and a terrible mistake on the part of The Bulletin for printing this lie, the intent of which on the part of Suterra is clearly to deceive the public into believing Suterra’s presence in the community will not lead to the poisoning of residents, their habitat and their water.

Here in California, we know what Suterra’s products do to us, our wildlife, our domestic animals and our environment, and it is because of this that I am urging you to write to this newspaper and urge them to print a correction. The people of Bend need the true facts. If they are to protect themselves, they need to be up in arms and not permit this corrupt and incredibly dangerous corporation to take root in their innocent town. Just think of the health damage that may be done to them if Suterra is not stopped from turning Bend into their own private pesticide lab.

Please, if you have been physically or psychologically abused by Suterra in connection with the LBAM spray public health crisis, take just a few minutes to write to the author of the article and the newspaper’s editor to share what you know about Suterra and their ’safe’ pesticides.
Peter Sachs
Tim Doran

Urge these men to do their duty as members of the press by printing true, unbiased facts…not simply republishing the marketing pitches of special interest groups. Printing these kinds of statements endangers public health.

Here is my letter to these 2 gentlemen:

Welcoming Suterra To Your Community?

Dear Sirs,
I was extremely concerned when a friend in your community forwarded me an article printed in your paper regarding pesticide manufacturer Suterra’s attempted acquisition of 1500 acres of land in Bend, Oregon.

Of greatest concern to me was the quote you printed from Suterra claiming that pheromone pesticides do not contaminate ground water or pose a health risk to people and wildlife.

Unfortunately, California’s experience with the pheromone-pesticide Checkmate, manufactured by Suterra, has proven just the opposite. Following the aerial spraying of Checkmate on Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties in the autumn of 2007, the following damages were done:

1) The watershed was horrifically fouled with a yellow, foaming substance. This included the coastline, rivers and lakes.

2) More than 600 seabirds, including endangered species, washed up dead on the beaches.

3) Songbirds disappeared from gardens for weeks following the spray. In some areas, they have still not returned after nearly a year from the spraying.

4) Pets including cats, dogs and rabbits died. Fish in landscaping ponds died.

5) Beekeepers reported massive confusion and dieoff in their hives.

6) More than 600 families filled out illness reports after being sprayed. Complaints included respiratory complaints, irritation of eyes and skin, vomiting, diarrhea and the recommencement of menstruation in menopausal women over the age of 65. Upon citizen investigation, it was discovered that each of these symptoms were linked with known effects of the ingredients in Suterra’s Checkmate.

7) 2 formerly-healthy small children were hospitalized and nearly died of respiratory and heart failure after being sprayed with Checkmate. Both children now have chronic asthma and are being kept breathing with medication.

I am listing these basics of exposure to Suterra’s products so that you will understand that they are not, in fact safe, and that the people of Bend, Oregon will be in very real danger if Suterra is allowed to build their pesticide factory in the community.

The fact of the matter is, no studies have ever been done on the chronic (long-term) effects of Suterra’s products on human beings, wildlife, water or habitat. These pesticides were initially used on fruits and vegetables. Now, in California, they are spraying them on human beings with disastrous effects of the kind I have just described above. This is being done without any testing for chronic effects, so it is false to state that pheromone-pesticides are safe. In the absence of proof, that statement is a lie.

In closing, I would like to add that ‘Biotech’ is a marketing euphemism created to replace the term ‘Genetic Modification’ because the public reacted negatively to the idea of being exposed to genetically modified substances. It is up to the people of Bend, Oregon whether the want to allow GMO/pesticide manufacturers to infiltrate their community. My letter is written to you in hopes that you will present them with the true facts regarding Suterra and their products so that your community can make an informed choice.

Thank you for reading my letter.

& etc.

Saturday 26 Jul 2008 | admin | LBAM Spray Bay Area |
4 Responses to “Suterra Plotting To Buy 1500 Acres In Bend, Oregon”

on 27 Jul 2008 at 4:51 pm Solstice

thank you for writing and explaining the truth. its a shame hat people like this nab the press and tell them untrue things to promote their unsavory ativities.
and, i wonder why they ae planning to occupy so much space in bend, oregon.
i will write also,but wish i was aware of more places in oregon to write. maybe the governors office, but perhaps that person will prove to be like arnold.
on 28 Jul 2008 at 1:52 pm admin

Hi Solstice,
I’ve yet to hear back from The Bulletin’s editors. I’m really hoping I will and that they will, at the very least, write a follow-up piece featuring the truth about Suterra.

1500 acres is a huge piece of land, I agree. Perhaps they intend to use open land to test their products on? A horrifying thought.

It’s so nice to see you here and I’m glad to know that you are writing to the newspaper.

on 09 Sep 2008 at 11:25 am Christopher Neuschafer

1. There isn’t enough documentable proof behind the symptoms that arose after the aerial spraying to publish them as fact in a journalistic paper. And aluding to them for the point of persuading the public to kick out Suterra is unethical.

2. If you’ve ever been to Bend, you would know that it’s not just a little town of rednecks. It’s a vary diverse and evergrowing community with MANY environmentalists like yourself that would dissaprove of this company moving in without their sketchy background.

The idea of posting a press release on your webpage is to inform the public of what’s happening. The Bend Bulletin, which I read on a very regular occassion, is an incredibly ethical and well documented local publication. They don’t write slam stories based on a few rumors of what happened in another state, so they post what they have and they let the public do the research. People like you help inform the public of what happened in California, and then they will take your information and the information from Suterra and the state departments who defend them and decide for themselves what should be done about it.
on 09 Sep 2008 at 12:11 pm admin

Welcome Christopher,
I appreciate you taking the time to comment, but call into question your statement that the reason The Bend Bulletin wouldn’t print a ’slam story based on rumors’ is because they are ethical about providing well-documented information.

The Bend Bulletin was perfectly willing to print Suterra’s party line about the harmlessness of their chemicals. This is not only un-documented but egregiously false and the fact that the newspaper was willing to print this utterly false claim of Suterra’s can only result in your community being misled about a matter as serious as their health and their lives.

Having watched hundreds of Californians fall ill after being exposed to Suterra’s products, I felt it was my duty to let the Bulletin know about what happened here. We don’t want this to happen in Oregon. But, I’m sorry to say that the editors did not even have the courtesy to respond to my email.

All across this country, the major Genetic Engineering corporations are using the press as their vehicle for delivering totally false marketing messages to the public, and unless journalists have the smarts to see past this, they are being used as little more than marketers for Big Ag, pesticide manufacturers and GMO labs. The tactics these completely odious corporations use to deceive the public are merciless, and if newspapers like The Bend Bulletin don’t defend themselves from being used by these corporations, they are doing their communities a major disservice.

In this battle of public welfare vs. corporate profits, I think Bend has a stand to take, if anyone will be brave enough to let them know what is really at stake.

Thank you again for commenting.

Trackback this Post | Feed on comments to this Post
Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)


Welcome Guest | Login or Register

LBAM Spray Bay Area
Free LBAM Spray Images
The Animal People
A Whole Life of Compassion
Hard Truths
Vegan Recipes for Normal Food

Subscribe to Vegan Reader!
Our Most Recent Articles:
· South Whitehall Township Fails To Love Sick Neighbor, Elizabeth Feudale-Bowes
· Priorities and Outlooks
· Prof. Chase's 3rd CDFA LBAM Fraud Report
· LBAM News - Huffman AB 2765 Bill Signed By Schwarzenegger
· Palin's Pathological Rage Against Wolves And Bears
· Sloths - Respecting The Sloth People
· California Proposition 2 - What Your Vote Really Means
· Prof. Chase Releases Second CDFA Fraud Report
· Suterra Plotting To Buy 1500 Acres In Bend, Oregon
· BT And The Danger It Poses To You In The LBAM Spray Public Health Crisis
· Spartina Project Poisons Us, Our Water, Our Wildlife With Herbicide
· Earth - The Insect Planet
· A Simple Equation For California
· The Legacy of Abuse - LBAM Spray
· Let It Not Be Forgotten - LBAM Aerial Spray
· Mike Lynberg's Free Advice to A.G. Kawamura
· LBAM Aerial Spraying Over Cities Stopped!
· Kenwood Press - Wins the Award for the Most Horrible LBAM Article To Date
· Moth Nights
· Paying The Price For Ignorant, Unskilled Farmers
· Your Health: Here Today and Gone Tomorrow with the LBAM Program
· Asking for Public Comment And Bright Ideas
· U.C. Davis Scientists Ask USDA To Halt Eradication Program
· Dr. Ann. M. Haiden's Report On Checkmate Health Harms
· Clear Moral Choice for Central Valley Farmers
· Thanks, A.G. Kawamura, For Lying To My Mother
· A Deadly Policy of Silence - LBAM Spray and the USA
· Reedley, CA Farmers Want Their Customers To Be Poisoned
· Bureaucrats using absence of evidence as evidence of the absence of harm
· Make Public Comment Now Regarding Toxic Ground Treatments!
· Kawamura Gets His Hat Handed To Him By Mayor Lieber
· Google Map of CDFAs LBAM Assault On SF Bay Area Watershed and Wild Birds
· Boycott Monterey Bay Aquarium If They Won't Boycott LBAM Spray
· Senator Boxer Accuses EPA of Profound Corruption
· Congresswoman Barbara Lee's Praiseworthy Letter to USDA
· Roy Upton's Final Report On LBAM Spray and Bees
· EON interview with Mike and Janis DeLay
· CDFA Found Guilty AGAIN Of Violating CEQA in Monterey Lawsuit
· The LBAM Spray Safety Questions No One Wants To Hear
· My Letter to California's Audubon Societies Regarding LBAM Spray and Bird Dieoff
· A.G. Kawamura Lies Again About LBAM Spray, Continues To Dig Own Grave
· Knepp and Haferman to the Rescue in the LBAM Spray Public Health Crisis
· Sonoma Passes Resolution Against Aerial Spraying
· Schwarzenegger Now Working for CDFA, Apparently
· Would I Lie To You? A.G. Kawamura and LBAM Spray
· 2 Very Hard Truths About The LBAM Spray
· Toxic LBAM Twist Ties, Trees and Your Cat
· Migden's SCR 87 Moratorium Passes Senate Environmental Quality Committee
· LBAM Spray - Doctors Accuse State of Experimentation, Fatal Damage
· Toxic LBAM Twist Ties, Sonoma County and Elsewhere
· Hundreds of EPA Scientists Confess Political Corruption
· The LBAM Spray Slideshow From Vegan Reader - Please Watch
· Send LBAM Spray Ecards, Thanks to
· LBAM Spray, PM10, and 630,000 Deaths
· Mike Lynberg Tells OEHHA To Step Down And Apologize in LBAM Spray Health Disaster
· Dr. Larry Rose's Crucial Report on LBAM Spray Toxicity
· LBAM Spray, Violence, Guns - We Can't Let it Happen
· California Can't Go Green While We're Turning Blue From LBAM Spray
· 5 Reasons Whole Foods Needs To Take A Stand On LBAM Aerial Spray
· How LBAM Spray Violates My Constitutional Right To Pursue Happiness
· CASS Predicts 260 BILLION in Damages to Real Estate, Tourism and Organics Because of LBAM Spray
· New Analysis of Plastic Particulate Pollution in LBAM Spray
· Mike Lynberg's Letter to OEHHA - A Plea for Us All
· 10 Things You Might Be Doing While the LBAM Pesticide Planes Are Spraying
· My Conversation With Whole Foods Corporate Headquarters About The LBAM Spray
· My LBAM Spray Letter to Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter
· Why Hasn't Gov. Schwarzenegger Contacted the Family Whose Baby His Plan Almost Killed?
· Do these Definitions Ring a Bell with You in the LBAM Spray Disaster?
· Breaking News: 2 Bills Passed, Others Rejected
· Carey not an Entomologist? What else is Kawamura confused about?
· LBAM Spray Headgames
· SF Supervisors Adopt Mirkarimi's Resolution - Say No To Spray!
· What Evil Sounds Like - LBAM Aerial Spray
· Is SF's 9-1-1 Prepared For LBAM Spray? Experts Say No
· Maxina Ventura's Response to OEHHA's Health Effects Report
· The Full Version of True Accounts of The LBAM Aerial Spraying
· Mike Lynberg's Powerful Response to Joan Denton of OEHHA
· What Does Pesticide Poisoning Feel Like? LBAM Spray Preparedness
· Who Are The Heroes in the LBAM Spray War?
· OEHHA's Negligent and Outrageous Insult to the Residents Who Were Sickened
· What Would Gandhi Do About the Aerial Spraying of Human Beings?
· Welcome to the SF Spray Area - LBAM Spray
· Moving Because of LBAM Spray - California's Refugee Problem
· LBAM Aerial Spray Images - Free Pictures For You To Use
· Warning - Keep Particulate Plastic Out of Children's Reach, LBAM Spray
· Will CDFA Give Us Gas Masks Before the Aerial Spraying of CA?
· The Sickening Effects of Permethrin On Wildlife - LBAM Spray
· Fabulous Report from the Environment and Human Rights Advisory - Must Read
· Chasing Clean Air blogs about aerial spraying
· Roy Upton YouTube Video - LBAM Spray Damage and Hope
· USDA Gearing Up To Spray the Whole United States!
· Seven Reasons to Be Concerned About LBAM Spray
· Psychological Stress Caused By LBAM Spraying - How Are You Doing?
· The Constitutional Rights That Exist To Protect You From LBAM Aerial Spraying
· Sierra Club Supports Aerial Spraying of Humans, Wildlife and Environment
· LBAM Aerial Spraying on California's 315 Million Tourists
· Health Math of the Moth Spray, California
· List of Civic Officials, Governments and Councils Opposed to Aerial LBAM Spray, CA.
· LBAM Spray Videos - Marin, CA March 3, 2008
· The Lying Letter I Received From Gov. Schwarzenegger's Office - LBAM Spray
· Vegan Talk Blogs About Spraying - The Word Is Getting Out
· UC Scientists Carey and Harder On Video Debunking LBAM Moth Myth
· Why Americans Do Not Believe Government Assurances About LBAM Spray Safety
· LBAM Spray, Breast Cancer - Letter to Susan G. Komen Foundation
· J.R.R. Tolkien Meets A.G. Kawamura - Aerial Spraying, CA
· LBAM Spray Assaults Marine Life As Well As Humans
· Mayor Lieber of Albany, CA. Protests Spraying of Bay Area

What's the Deal with Vegan Reader?

o Blog Archives
+ October 2008
+ September 2008
+ August 2008
+ July 2008
+ June 2008
+ May 2008
+ April 2008
+ March 2008
+ February 2008

Return to Home | LBAM Spray Bay Area | A Whole Life of Compassion | Hard Truths
Vegan Recipes for Normal Food | What's the Deal with Vegan Reader?
Copyright © 2008 Vegan Reader: Thoughtful Reading for a Compassionate Planet, All Rights Reserved
Website Design by Solas Web Design

Anonymous said...

Suterra creates pheromone-based insect control products. Suterra claims a high level of safety, although there have been reports of extensive safety issues with aerial applications in California.


That's our pussy. 'This reporter'. 'Suterra' claims they make Phermone's ( horny bee perfume ), that and a few 100 barrels of isocyanate and you could create spray Iraq, and declare GW-BUSH a winner tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

2. If you’ve ever been to Bend, you would know that it’s not just a little town of rednecks. It’s a vary diverse and evergrowing community with MANY environmentalists like yourself that would dissaprove of this company moving in without their sketchy background.



Like I said its all great in Theory, but the truth is Bend has NO PRESS.

Spanish Property for Sale said...

pretty nice site and unique content for people.

Anonymous said...

Once again a disheartening level of secrecy surrounded a transaction at Juniper Ridge. The meeting was called to order by Councilor Telfer and immediately recessed into Executive Session "to discuss real estate issues" for almost an hour. Suterra executives and EDCO director Roger Lee left he executive session early, and then the Suterra execs were summoned back into the Executive Session again by Economic Development Director John Russell. When the execs came back out 15 minutes later, they were complaining to each other about being questioned so strongly on the subject of being able to finance their project.


That's FUNNY BP, Resnick who owns ROLL, who OWN Suterra is one of the richest men in the world, and this project is 100% financed by homeland security and BUSH. That anybody would question their ability to pay, that is hilarious.

Anonymous said...

Suterra is 100% financed by Homeland-Security, and monitored by Dick Cheney.


Unspeakable Horror: The Department of Homeland Security Begins American Genocide with
Biochemical Weapon.
Genocide: “Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical
destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly
transferring children of the group to another group.”
The first treatment of a biochemical "pesticide" known as Checkmate, was completed on the
anniversary of the tragic 9/11 attack.
In order to initiate the aerial spray, which occurred on 9/09/07over populated area’s of Monterey County, the US
EPA initiated an emergency exemption under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) for the light brown apple moth (LBAM). The reason: the "USDA estimates the impact on plant
production costs may exceed $100 million in the state of California."
No Legitimate Evidence of Moth Harm
This proclamation of impact comes even though: "To this date, however, no crop damage has been reported
locally, according to Ken Corbishley, the county agricultural commissioner."
It is not crop damage that that allowed for the EPA to file an exemption, but rather the fact that the LBAM is an
invasive species.
Funding from the Homeland Security
Department of Homeland Security Daily Open Source Infrastructure Report August 13, 2007 states: "USDA
announces additional funds to control light brown apple moth."
The fact that Homeland Security is funding the aerial spraying is cause for alarm, because clearly the people in
charge believe that aerial applications are urgent.
So urgent is the supposed need to spray, that "The state warned if the light brown apple moth wasn't stopped,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture would step in and take over."
Drastic Eradication Measures Do Not Correspond to Science or Logic
What has dumbfounded people is the feeling that they are being personally attacked by the aerial spraying of
Checkmate. Protestors hold up signs that say, “We are not moths.” They say this, because the aerial applications
are scheduled to take place over their homes. People will be in contact with the supposed moth pheromone for
1 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide.
4 The type of exemption issued by the EPA, is a Quarantine Exemption "A quarantine exemption may be
authorized in an emergency condition to control the introduction or spread of any pest new to or not theretofore
known to be widely prevalent or distributed within and throughout the United States and its territories (Updated
July 1st, 2003)
5 These are Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Funds!ut/p/_s.
Page 2
30 days at a time, while the pheromone is time released into the air.
These all seem like drastic, and unnecessary measures, for a moth for which there is no evidence of damage.
Even though twist ties, and sticky traps are effective at limiting the moth, these options seem for some reason to
be unappealing to the California State Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). During one session, the
claim by CDFA Secretary A.G. Kawamura, was that the state had to eliminate the moth as fast as possible, and
that the only way to this was the aerial treatments. Yet it does not make any logical sense, because, aerial
treatments are designed to disrupt mating habits, and are designed for long term containment, not short term
elimination. At least one year of spraying planned, continuing in March 2008, for 9 months in a row, every month.
Aerial treatments are planned to continue to as late as 2010, which coincidently is the maximum amount of time
given to use an untested pesticide under the EPA emergency quarantine exemption.
Intent to Destroy
When you look at the attached aerial spraying map. You will see something that is deeply disturbing. The zones
for aerial spraying, do not seem to closely follow the LBAM moth trap finds. In other words, it seems like the
aerial boundaries are arbitrary and capricious.
What is most alarming, is that two grids have been laid out, over the highly populated area’s of Santa Cruz
County and Monterey County consisting of approximately 100,000 people. It looks almost as if these cities are
the targets of the aerial spraying, with the two other spray boundaries in between them, merely added to distract
the eye.
The Checkmate formulations are claimed by the EPA, USDA, and CDFA to be safe. The reason is that, they are
supposed to be Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) formulas. Bt’s are naturally-occurring soil bacterium that produces
poisons which cause disease in insects but lack of toxicity to humans or the natural enemies of many crop pests.
One individual who participated in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s in forestry efforts to eliminate another moth
with Bt chemicals, claimed that she got sprayed with the chemicals several times, that she stored the chemicals,
and that moth’s would flock to her when the chemicals were on her clothes; all without any noticeable side
As you will see, it is impossible to believe that solely a Bt formula is being applied due to the over 200 health
complaints filed from Monterey County Residents after the first aerial application. The real number of health
effects is many times greater than this 200, but a variety of factors, including doctor’s refusal to see patients who
are affected by the chemicals, has limited the reports. Knowingly applying some other substance than the Bt
formula with no side effects, especially a formula which is known to cause harms to humans, would qualify and
intent to destroy.
Serious Bodily Harm & Hiding Facts About Harm
One of the complaints was that an 11 month old baby nearly died from asphyxiation due to contact with
Checkmate. Other severe complaints include: intestinal distress, coughing up blood, severe lethargy, severe
rashes from playing outside, headaches, and female reproductive disorders. Several people went to the
emergency room due to aerial treatments.
The CDFA claims that the Checkmate formulations, along with the micro-flake mating disruption and isomate
pheromone’s are totally safe. Originally on their website, they had an online flyer stating that one should not be
outside during the spray, and not touch anything that had been sprayed. Later they removed these statements
claiming that these precautions are now unnecessary.
The CDFA is also hiding their plans to spray Santa Cruz County beginning 11/4/07 for six nights. They have
removed the treatment map from their website, and they have not sent out the required warnings to citizens yet.
If the CDFA is so confident about the health and safety of their program, then why are they trying to not give
notice to citizens about aerial spraying? It is almost as if the CDFA is pretending like they won’t spray.
Normally, when one files a complaint with the CDFA, regarding a possibly dangerous food, the CDFA may
immediately issue a large recall of the food item, sometimes without any evidence that the food is even
Of the 117 signed health claims submitted to the CDFA, not one has been investigated. No recall of the aerial
treatments have been issued. No doctor’s examinations, no blood chemistry tests, no allergy response tests.
Page 3
What is the CDFA’s purpose in ignoring health claims in this situation? Is there a secret plan?
It is also known that birds can see and eat the microcapsules, and that bee’s can mistake the microcapasules for
pollen (see article regarding Checkmate and Particle Pollution). Yet the CDFA falsely claims that spraying
Checkmate regularly over time will not cause a significant health or environmental hazard.
Calculated to Bring About Destruction & Imposing Measures to prevent Births
Checkmate is formulated in a microcapsule. This is a miniature ball of plastic with a liquid core. It is obvious that
inhaling miniature fragments of plastic is unsafe. The micro-flake distribution system, and micro-particles from
the biodegradable polymer microcapsule shell, likely fall into the range of particle pollution that cause known
human health effects at the sizes between 2.5 – 10 microns. We do not know, because neither the CDFA, nor
anyone else, is testing for particle pollution from the microcapasules. Over 36 billion microcapsules were
distributed over the citizens of Monterey County during the last aerial spraying. Particle pollution is linked to
premature death.
Microcapsules and their associated particles, are also not safe to breathe in unless they are biocompatible -
meaning that they are designed to degrade safely in the human body. Since Checkmate was developed for
agricultural use, it is not biocompatible. The fact that a non-biocompatible substance is being sprayed on, and
thus, touched, absorbed, and inhaled, on tens of thousands of humans, is evidence of a calculated action to
bring about destruction of life since the non-biocompatible elements of Checkmate will be harmful to humans.
One of the published ingredients in Checkmate, is a Xenochemical called 2-hydroxy-4-n-
"Rapidly increasing scientific evidence suggests that many of these chemicals,
structures of which cross a wide range, can interfere with normal, hormonally regulated biological processes to
adversely affect development and/or reproductive function in wildlife, experimental animals, and humans”
Chemical messengers in our bodies are called hormones. They are secreted in minute amounts by our glands,
to create chemical and physiological changes in our bodies. It is of the gravest alarm to note that 2-hydroxy-4-n-
octyloxybenzophenone can bind to human estrogen receptors in men, women and children. Many women who
are in the spray zone in Monterey County, have immediately experienced severe symptoms related to their
reproductive health. These symptoms include: extremely swollen and tender breasts, exacerbated PMS
symptoms, extreme mood swings, hot flashes, sweating, spotting and delayed periods. This even happened to
women who were not directly sprayed, but who entered the spray area several days after the spray.
If this Xenochemical is delivered directly into the bloodstream, then even a minute amount, from just one or
several microcapsules, could significantly influence estrogen receptors, convincing the body to create chemical
reactions. The symptoms described indicate that something in the aerial applications, whether it is a listed or
unlisted chemical, is designed to target human estrogen receptors for the purpose of birth control! Clearly a
measure to prevent births.
Microcapsules are Drug Delivery Devices
One method for delivering minute amounts of hormone directly into the blood stream, would be a system of
micro-encapsulation. Microcapsules in medicine are a new field and can be used to design a slow release drug
into the body. In these cases, biocompatible capsules are created so that the body can absorb the capsule shell.
The evidence of the symptoms described by those who have inhaled the time release substance within the
microcapsules, shows that some aspects of aerial formulations sprayed on citizens, are designed to deliver
minute but potent amounts of substances directly into the human bloodstream. Thus, violating FDA laws about
delivering untested drugs to the populace, and clearly violating human rights for all who are in the aerial spray
It is clear that the used and applied chemical formulation of Checkmate has effects on female reproductive
health, and that these affects are not typical with Bt chemicals. Thus a typical Bt chemical is not the only
chemical being deployed.
9 (see Colborn et al., 1993; Danzo, 1998; Daston et al., 1997; Kavlock et al., 1996; Sonnenschein and Soto,
1998; Toppari et al., 1996 for recent reviews)."
Page 4
Human Experimentation with “pesticides” by EPA
In February 2005, the EPA released plans to begin, experimenting on humans with pesticides.
These plans
now include testing on young children and pregnant women. The House and Senate voted to ban these plans,
so the EPA has found a work-around solution.
The Checkmate chemicals applied to Monterey County in the last two months, with plans for further applications
in Santa Cruz County at the end of this week, fall under the category of human experimentation and are in
violation of the Nuremberg Code. It is illegal by EPA’s laws to spray pesticides on people. The Checkmate
chemicals have never been thoroughly tested due to the EPA’s an emergency exemption, until they where tested
on the citizens of Monterey County in September and October of 2007.
Finally, in an iron clad set-up, it is seems impossible to have any legitimate independent testing of the
Checkmate chemicals. We must “trust” the EPA, that these chemicals are safe. Yet they cannot be known to be
safe for humans, without first, human experimentation. Apparently these aerial treatments over California citizens
are the EPA’s experiments.
Why would the EPA violate its own laws, if not for some other plan is at stake? How is it that we allowed, the
CDFA to spray people with untested chemicals that do cause harm, while they lie to and mislead the public about
the safety of the chemicals.
Senator Barbara Boxer stated, “If the EPA can get away, testing on babies, infants, then they can get away with
anything when it comes to human testing."
Right now they are getting away with anything, a plain and blatant violation of our human rights, to not to be
experimented upon with untested chemicals against our well.
In the 1950’s, it is documented that the army released spray containing harmful bacteria in New York and San
Francisco as apart of secret human experimentation.
The idea of creating biological weapons that disperse in minute amounts through the air is not new, and it comes
from the army.
Enough evidence has been presented here, which shows us the first layer, of a devious plan to eliminate a large
population of people.
#1 Funding from the Department of Homeland Security
#2 An emergency that is not urgent, but then claimed to be urgent
#3 Reproductive health effects and other severe health effects
#4 Spray zones are target for densely populated region on humans, not on biology
#5 Health Complaints not thoroughly investigated as spraying continues
#6 Known toxic ingredients in Checkmate, yet EPA & CDFA claims it to be non-toxic
#7 Spray pattern on city only partially related to moth infestation
#8 Absence of environmental review, which would illustrate the harms of spraying
#9 Scientific evidence by environmentalists and chemists ignored.
#10 Prudent marketing by the CDFA to promote spraying
#11 Hiding spray plans from scrutiny and from the public and thus surprising people
#12 Bt chemicals may not have human side effects, while Checkmate chemicals do
#13 Ignoring direct demands from state legislatures and city councils to stop spraying
#14 CDFA threatening that USDA will continue spraying
#15 Clear harm to children, yet spraying continues
#16 Clear evidence of harm to adults, sick, elderly, and spraying continues.
#17 Clear evidence of human experimentation, ignored, and spraying continues.
#18 Safe alternatives to aerial treatments ignored
Page 5
#19 Citizen’s needs, wants and desires ignored.
#20 Lack of independent scrutiny of Checkmate formulas.
#21 Original moth find in Berkeley, not in Santa Cruz or Monterey Counties.
#22 Microencapsulation system used to deploy drugs
#23 Microencapsulation system designed with plastics dangerous to human health, yet that fact is not addressed
by CDFA, or EPA.
There is only one explanation for these incongruence and facts that allows all the pieces to fit together.
Something that explains why cities and not crops are targeted. That explains why human rights are being
violated to protect from the possibility of crop damage which there is no evidence for.
This is a plan for a biochemical experiment on humans to test a newly developed chemical weapon,
which contains potent hormonal disrupters, and possibly other deadly ingredients.
The weapon is likely designed to have long term affects (1 month to 20 years), to prevent women from having
children, and to cause premature death. Its design is likely so that the immediate connection from spraying
would remain unrecognized, and that its true ingredients may be difficult to detect.
In this scenario, it is likely that the LBAM was artificially introduced into the environments of Santa Cruz and
Monterey Counties to great a false alarm. It was introduced in other counties to make it appear like an
infestation. Even though the LBAM did not multiply greatly in Monterey, that area was target as the first aerial
location. This is possibly because of the close government ties to the owner of Checkmate’s manufacturing firm,
Suterra, who also owns Dole. This also would allow for easy monitoring of the results.
Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties have relatively clean air from ocean breezes, and are not too large in size.
This is ideal for conducting an experiment such as this because many other air pollutant variables can be
eliminated, so that the results of the biochemical can be clearly seen.
A legal structure was formed over a period of time, to try to limit or prevent resistance to the aerial treatments
under an emergency exemption.
The light brown apple moth, is not the issue here, but rather is a hoax, or a front, for the CDFA, EPA, and USDA,
under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security, to experiment on citizens.
Future Strategies to Look For To Prove Genocidal Plans
Already Moth Quarantines have begun for the gypsy moth. Thus a new emergency already declared, and in the
future, another EPA exemption would allow 3 more years of aerial treatments.
Moth’s will continue to be found in other locations, thus somehow requiring the need for aerial applications all
over the state, perhaps the country.
Health affects will continue to be ignored, and public relations doctors and scientists will continue to try to claim it
is safe.
News media and other tactics will be employed to downplay harm of aerial treatments.
Like with any war, the motive is evil. The purpose to kill and deny life. Why do humans do this? They do to
others, what they do to themselves. Violence, begets violence.
Really there is no justification violence between groups of people, and yet even today, genocide is occurring.
13 Moth Quarantines, for the Light Brown Apple Moth, and the Gypsy Moth, are listed as emergencies
throughout California.

Anonymous said...


A Detailed Description of Management Strategy Fraud
Prepared For The People by Professor Glen Chase

A.G. Kawmanura, Secretary of the CDFA.

Kawmanura sprays hundreds of thousands of infant children,
toddlers, pregnant mothers and adults with untested
pesticides. He assures the public that its "Safe," though there
is not a single scientific document that concludes that it is
safe. When CDFA lies or false information gets exposed,
Kawmanura says that he needs to communicate better,
implying the lies and fake information were just a

Steve Lyle, Director of Public Relations.

Steve's quote in the Santa Cruz Sentinel Paper1 regarding the
pesticide sprayed directly on children: "The chemicals have,
in fact, been reviewed, and they found the pheromone doesn't
kill anything." Unfortunately no natural moth pheromone was
used, instead a synthetic chemical pesticide that the State
Health Hazard agency found to be toxic.9, 11 And it was
manufactured by Suterra, the company owned by Stewart
Resnick, the democrat who contributed $144,600 to the
Rebublican Governor's reelection campaign.
John Connell, Director of Plant Health & Pest Prevention.

Replaces Kawmanura as CDFA spokesman at the Sonoma
County Board of Supervisors meeting after Kawmanura is
caught lying on CBS news telling CBS that CDFA only uses
EPA registered pesticides (lie) and that Professor James
Carey is not an entomologist (lie).2 Connell follows suit and
lies to the Board telling Supervisors that Dr. Dan Harder did
not go to the southern island of New Zealand when preparing
his LBAM report.3 Connell also misrepresents Dr. James
Carey's work, the entomologist who first determined that
LBAM has been in California for at least 30-50 years which
denies the CDFA's basis of LBAM emergency.3



CDFA METHOD OF FRAUD #1................................................3

CDFA METHOD OF FRAUD #2................................................5

CDFA METHOD OF FRAUD #3................................................7

CDFA METHOD OF FRAUD #4................................................8

CDFA METHOD OF FRAUD #5................................................8

BACKGROUND INFORMATION.............................................9

CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION...........................................11



Professor Chase, the author........................................................12



The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) has committed fraud
methodically and on a grand scale regarding the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM)
eradication program. This report details the fraud and deception within the strategies and
communications that CDFA Management perpetrated in order to create and sell a bogus
emergency eradication program for LBAM in California.

CDFA Motivation: By faking the need for an unnecessary emergency eradication
program for LBAM, CDFA attempts to fraudulently access $100's of millions of dollars of
emergency taxpayer funds, which are intended for real emergencies. And because LBAM
does no damage to crops, forests, or home gardens, CDFA Management can spend the
$100's of millions for anything they want and to anyone they choose, because CDFA
activities are not necessary to actually accomplish anything.4-1 It is very much like the
CDFA taking emergency funds to keep the sky from falling.

Exposing The Fraud: When researchers and scientists checked every country on this
earth that has a record of LBAM arriving throughout recorded history, they found that
there is not a single example of LBAM ever being a serious pest, ever! 4-2


CDFA's main method of fraud is "Fear and Solution." CDFA creates a false fear and
then comes to the rescue with a solution. The false fear is the nearly harmless moth that
CDFA characterizes as the moth of mass destruction. CDFA falsifies that eradication is
necessary and possible, and extorts taxpayer emergency funds for a fake and unnecessary

Fraud Activity #1-1: In Fall 2007, CDFA initiated a propaganda campaign to alarm
people of the damage caused by LBAM. Through media and community meetings in
Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, CDFA lead people to believe that damage had been
occurring from LBAM and the magnitude of the damage would accelerate until there was
no turning back and LBAM would devastate agriculture crops, forests and home gardens.
By April 2008, concerned citizens, scientists and superior courts in Santa Cruz and
Monterey Counties found that no damage, literally none, had actually occurred.

Fraud Activity #1-2: The theme of fraud that the CDFA is now using is a classic
example of the false fear that CDFA creates. Now that the CDFA has been exposed for
lying about existing damage from LBAM, CDFA has rebounded with a new slogan:
"Once the damage is seen, its too late." CDFA uses this slogan to make us believe that
LBAM is like a locust attack on our State or the wall of a dam breaking and that we
should have fixed the crack ahead of the devastation. This is all scary stuff. But there is
ZERO truth and ZERO relationship of LBAM to the fear scenario that the CDFA has
created in their new slogan. It is without precedent in the known history of this earth that
LBAM suddenly devastates crops, forests or backyard gardens, as CDFA Management
would want us to believe.

Fraud Activity #1-3: CDFA Management is lying to make people believe that LBAM
has only been in California for a short time. This deception is an attempt to support the
previous deception (in #1-2 above) that LBAM damage is still coming. If people knew
the truth that LBAM has been here for many years and caused no damage, even CDFA
could not scare them. So CDFA is currently promoting the message that LBAM has
recently arrived. If that were true, it would make LBAM the fastest spreading moth in
the known history of the earth and CDFA knows that LBAM has no history or pattern of
such glory.

Prior to the first two reports of CDFA fraud being released, CDFA Management was not
as careful in delivering their lies. CDFA repeatedly implied to the public that February
2007, the month that CDFA had DNA tests completed for LBAM, was also the date that
LBAM arrived in California. That date was planted in hundreds of media stories and
CDFA never once corrected the misunderstanding that they intentionally created.5 DNA
testing a dinosaur bone in February 2007 does not mean that dinosaurs arrived in
California on that date, but CDFA used that date to create the illusion of recent arrival.
For others who were more aware, CDFA denied that LBAM was in California for a long
time because CDFA ineffectively put out traps in 2005 and didn't catch any. Currently,
CDFA is using in-house entomologists to fake a report that LBAM is here for only five or
six years. This at least erases the 2007 arrival date that CDFA still implies to unknowing
audiences and it confirms that CDFA 2005 trapping data is not relevant to determining an
arrival date.

CDFA is now using the movement of nursery stock to falsely rationalize the widespread
distribution of LBAM in California.3 While it is possible that a find of a moth or two
could actually be from a plant that was carried to another place, the wide spread locations
of LBAM in California and the population densities of LBAM in these locations, can not
be explained by plant movement or LBAM hitching rides on trucks. The sciences of
Entomology, Statistics, Botany and Invasive Pest Biology indicate that 30-50 years is the
minimum time that LBAM has been in California to reach its current spread and
population density.6 It could be even longer as the spread of moths has a history
sometimes of simply not expanding for significant periods of time. However, it is likely
that CDFA will soon produce an in-house report, that is not peer reviewed, to maintain
deception and to serve as CDFA's next generation of fake science for the public.

Fraud Activity #1-4: Pictures that CDFA Management displayed to imply LBAM
damage in California were not pictures of LBAM in California. To date, CDFA
Management has not responded as to the places and dates these pictures were actually
taken. Because of CDFA Management's reluctance to identify the location and dates of
those pictures that CDFA showed to misrepresent LBAM damage, it is likely that CDFA
forced moth larva into fruit that CDFA had cut open or some other form of photographic
deception that is typical of other CDFA Management behavior. None of the pictures
appear to be within a natural agriculture setting, and CDFA has gone silent on this issue.

Fraud Activity #1-5: CDFA declared LBAM an emergency avoiding the required legal
process of initiating and completing an Environmental Impact Report, per California
Environmental Quality Law. From September to November 2007, CDFA sprayed over
400,000 people with toxic chemicals that by April 2008, the courts had declared illegal
and in violation of California's Environmental Law. To date, no apology from the CDFA
has been given to any of those people. Not a single response by CDFA Management to
over 600 people or their doctors who reported illness has ever been made. CDFA
Management has not returned a phone call, written a letter or sent an email to the father
of a perfectly healthy 11-month-old boy who went into respiratory arrest following the
aerial spray. It is estimated that 40,000 to 80,000 people were sickened by the spray and
no one yet knows how many of the 400,000 people's lives will suffer long term.

Fraud Activity #1-6: During Fall 2007, there was a natural Oak Moth infestation in Santa
Cruz and Monterey Counties. Most of the public does not know the difference between
one moth and another. CDFA Management used the visibility and timing of the Oak
Moth infestation to declare the LBAM emergency. Many people incorrectly thought the
Oak Moth damage was from LBAM because CDFA had falsely publicized LBAM
damage. CDFA did not clarify nor publicize that the damage people were seeing was
exclusively from Oak Moths, not LBAM.


The second method of CDFA fraud finds the CDFA supplying other agencies with false
information so that the work of other agencies results in conclusions that support the
CDFA lies. Other agencies are generally innocent, but under pressure for immediate
results with limited budgets and not suspecting CDFA deception, other agencies accept
the information and data that CDFA supplies them.

Fraud Activity #2-1: CDFA supplied the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and
the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) with false information.

In fall 2007, the CDFA sprayed pesticides on a population of approximately 400,000
people in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties. The pesticide was designed to stay in the
air for 30-90 days to attract moths, so of course people would continue breathing it for
the same 30-90 days. CDFA Management insisted it was safe for humans to breathe.

To prove it was safe, the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) created a consensus statement on
their opinion of the health effects on people. The CDFA gave these agencies the
information regarding the pesticides that were sprayed on the people and these agencies
used that information, as given by CDFA, for their evaluation and ultimate opinion.

A key item of information was the particle size of the pesticide sprayed on the people.
CDFA told the agencies that the smallest particle was 25 microns.7 This is critically
important since particles 25 microns and larger are generally caught in the nasal and
throat passages and ultimately expelled by the body. Particles smaller than 10 microns
can get lodged deep in the lung and are more likely to directly enter the blood stream.
This can cause death and a myriad of problems to a human body immediately, in the
short term and the long term. The body simply doesn't have the filters or natural
preventative systems to effectively handle such minute particles.

The average (median) particle size of the pesticide sprayed in fact was 9.8 microns.8
That means that over half of the trillions of particles released were smaller than 10
microns. This information was discovered by a private citizen scientist, but he found it in
CDFA documents.

CDFA Management did not ask DPR and OEHHA to redo their study using the correct
particle size in the pesticide sprayed on people including pregnant women, infants,
toddlers, school age children, handicapped and the elderly. Instead, CDFA Management
continued to repeat "Perfectly Safe," regardless of the facts.

Fraud Activity #2-2: A.G. Kawmanura, Secretary and head of the CDFA, repeatedly
reported to the media and the public that the chemical applied onto the human population
was non-toxic. Kawmanura did this despite the fact that even the DPR and OEHHA
consensus statement identified the ingredients and the complete pesticide product applied
on the people as toxic.9, 11

Over 600 people reported illness from the spray. It is estimated that 40,000 to 80,000
people became ill from the spray. Children never experiencing respiratory problems
ended up in the hospital. An 11-month-old child with no history of any respiratory
problems went into respiratory arrest following the spray.10 Kawmanura has never
apologized or made an attempt to communicate with any individual or doctor that
reported illness, but he continues to preach to the press and the public that the CDFA
applications of pesticides on children are safe.

Fraud Activity #2-3: In February 2008, CDFA Management hired a public relations firm
for $500,000 to convince the people that the spray was safe, but CDFA Management
wouldn't spend one cent to contact any one of the many hundreds of people who reported
illness or the thousands that actually got sick from the pesticide applications or their
doctors who reported the illnesses. Shortly after CDFA contracted the Porter Novelli
Public Relations firm, it was reported that government fair practices contracting rules were
violated by CDFA and CDFA immediately terminated the contract. CDFA Management
denied any wrongdoing and said that the contract termination was for a different reason.

Porter Novelli is the Public Relations firm that is credited with keeping the public from
being aware of global warming problems during the many years that Porter Novelli was
contracted by some of the biggest polluting companies in the world. Porter Novelli's
founders are also credited with getting Nixon re-elected prior to his impeachment. It is
likely that members of Porter Novelli or others who are willing to commit crimes against
humanity are still working off the record and out of sight for the CDFA. Since CDFA
initially contracted with Porter Novelli, CDFA Management's methods of deception and
misinformation delivery and strategies appear to be better coordinated than prior to Porter
Novelli's inclusion.

Fraud Activity #2-4: After word got out in the media and generally in the San Francisco
Bay area that hundreds of people reported illness and thousands got ill in Santa Cruz and
Monterey counties, CDFA requested DPR, OEHHA and the California Department of
Public Health (CDPH) to do another study. This April 10, 2008 study was limited so
again not a single person or doctor was interviewed or examined. Instead, only the
administrative report records were looked at and only about 10% of the total were
considered. The results of this limited study were inconclusive. The report conclusion
was unable to deny the link between the pesticides applied on the people and their
illnesses, and it also did not show the link.12

With this information, CDFA Management and OEHHA Management again deceived the
press and the public by not telling them that the report could not deny that the
pesticide applied on the people had caused their illnesses. CDFA and OEHHA only
told the press and the public that the report didn't show the link. Kawmanura further
implied that the report concluded that the pesticides were safe and had not sickened
people, which was inaccurate, misrepresenting the report and a dangerous lie.

Fraud Activity #2-5: Kawmanura and other CDFA Management visited cities and counties
in the proposed pesticide application areas and delivered the false messages of damage
done by the moth, recent arrival of the moth, pesticide applications were safe etc. After
private citizens and scientists visited these cities, 29 cities and three counties, representing
2.4 million people, passed resolutions against the CDFA LBAM eradication program.13
90 organizations representing unions, school districts, organic farmers, etc also passed
resolutions against the CDFA LBAM eradication program.14 Many of these cities and
organizations had been fooled initially only hearing the lies of CDFA Management.

Fraud Activity #2-6: CDFA has also delivered false, biased and inaccurate information
to the Technical Working Group (TWG) and the Environmental Task Force (ETF) in
order that these groups come to conclusions that support the CDFA eradication program.


The third method of CDFA fraud is to load the decision making processes with people
who have something to gain by the fake eradication program going forward and exclude
independent and honest analysis by scientists and others who are not dependent on or
under the wing of CDFA.

Fraud Activity #3-1: CDFA loaded the Technical Working Group (TWG) and the
Environmental Task Force (ETF) with people that were likely to support the bogus
CDFA LBAM eradication program. CDFA Management was intent to keep anyone out
of these groups who was known to have a different opinion or willing to consider realistic
alternatives. The University of California recently offered a panel of experts to look at the
eradication program of LBAM, but CDFA refused.


The fourth method is repetition of message: "Safe," "Safe," "Safe," "Safe," "Safe,"
"Just a Pheromone," "Just a Pheromone," "Just a Pheromone," "Just a Pheromone."
It is interesting to learn that there is not a single drop of natural moth pheromone in the
entire bogus eradication program, and not a single scientific document that concludes that
any method used by CDFA in their program is safe.

It is shocking to learn that the toxic synthetic chemical pesticide, which is produced in a
pesticide manufacturing facility, that CDFA calls "Pheromone" is forced into the air in
amounts millions of times greater than humans contact from natural pheromones
produced by LBAM.15

CDFA Management had their staff walk residential neighborhoods in Sonoma County
and tell the residents that twist ties placed on their property are safe and of no concern to
their health or the health of their children and pets. Anyone who contacts twist tie
manufacturers will learn that twist ties were engineered and manufactured to be used only
in agricultural fields and orchards, not residential neighborhoods. Since there are no
studies regarding the impact of twist ties in residential areas and it is an experiment
performed by CDFA Management, assuring the residents of safety for their families
including their children is certainly an immoral, if not a criminal act.


The fifth method of fraud and deception is damage control. When the CDFA is caught
lying, or the false information they deliver is found to be incorrect, A.G. Kawmanura, the
secretary of the CDFA, makes the statement that they will need to communicate better,
implying that the lies and deception were just a misunderstanding.

The CDFA lost two lawsuits in two different superior courts. Both courts found that NO
damage had occurred from LBAM. Both courts ruled that the CDFA emergency eradication
was illegal and in violation of California law. Both courts stopped the CDFA from further
proceeding with an illegal program. CDFA then insulted both superior court judges and
arrogantly claimed they would appeal and would certainly win the appeal on both court
decisions. As time passed and the public's memory of CDFA's appeal claim faded, CDFA
very quietly decided not to pursue the appeal. The appeal that CDFA boasted shortly and
continuously after the decisions of two courts has now been dismissed.

When CDFA Management is forced to stop their eradication program by a court decision,
enforcement of an existing law or by political pressure from elected officials, CDFA
complies but they attempt to save face and maintain their foundation of lies by announcing
that the stoppage is for a different reason. CDFA Management wants us to believe the
following lies: (1) the stoppage of their main method of eradication, aerial spray of pesticides
on the people, was not due to anything other than a scientific breakthrough in sterile moth
release; (2) the canceling of twist ties in Sonoma County was not because the citizens learned
their rights and legally stopped CDFA from accessing their properties, (3) the sudden
canceling of an illegal contract prior to its completion with Porter Novelli was not done to
minimize a potential investigation or protect CDFA Management from prosecution.


Much of the lies, deception and CDFA fraud that is so easy to see occurred early on in
the program when CDFA was not expecting members of the public and scientists from
the Agriculture and University communities to come forward and challenge the fake
information and denounce the bogus program that CDFA was promoting. Currently,
CDFA Management speaks far less often and only after carefully preparing their words
before releasing them to the public. CDFA Management today generally speaks in broad
terms such as protecting our agricultural industry with the safest products. Details are
rarely revealed today because the details are so easily refuted by legitimate scientists
familiar with the bogus CDFA LBAM program.

Background #1: In 2007 and early 2008, Kawmanura claimed that the window of
opportunity to eradicate the moth was only months. CDFA eradication couldn't be
successful if they waited and that is why CDFA sprayed pesticides on the people of Santa
Cruz and Monterey Counties during 2007 and why CDFA planned further monthly
applications starting in early 2008. Today, in October 2008, by CDFA's information, we
are now well past the window of opportunity to eradicate the moth since the eradication
effort never commenced in 2008 due to public and political pressure and the court
decisions not allowing the spraying. CDFA has never rationally explained why they are
still going for eradication when the window of opportunity that they indicated for
eradication is now past. CDFA should now be going into a period of monitoring and
controlling LBAM, if necessary, just as hundreds of other insects are monitored and
controlled. CDFA Management continues the "Eradication" program not to actually
eradicate the moth but to pretend they can in order to access the emergency funds.
Appropriate monitoring and controlling if necessary does not qualify for emergency
funds. The emergency LBAM funds that CDFA so treasures represent an additional 40%
of CDFA's total annual budget.

Background #2: CDFA Management continually said that aerial spraying was the ONLY
way to eradicate LBAM. When public and political pressure and the courts stopped the
aerial spraying, almost the same day, Steve Lyle, the Director of Public Relations for
CDFA, announced that there had been a major and unexpected breakthrough in sterile
moth release and that sterile moth release was now the predominant way to eradicate
LBAM. When asked by CBS news what the breakthrough was, Steve Lyle, the Director
of CDFA Public Relations didn't know, but said that he would look into it.16

Sterile moth release was not the new eradication tool that coincidentally had a break
through when aerial spray was rejected by the people, elected representatives and the
courts. It was simply a substitute method to continue the fraud to pretend eradication, so
emergency eradication funds could be grabbed by CDFA.

Sterile insect release works only in a very limited way with a very small number of
insects. The basic criteria for success of sterile insect release are: (1) a very small area of
infestation: (2) a concentrated location of the insect; (3) the insect locating in and around
a single crop; (4) The female mating only once and not being promiscuous; (5) the male
not guarding over female pupae waiting for them to mature as that would give advantage
to fertile males rather than sterile males released. With LBAM in California, none of
these criteria for success are met. In fact, the opposite is true in each case. The program
won't be up to any serious volume until 2011, well past even CDFA's representation of
window of opportunity to eradicate. Also, there has been no testing of this method
regarding LBAM.

To say that Sterile Moth Release is the main method now and that CDFA is counting on
it to be successful is beyond a fairy tale. Sterile moth release has never eradicated any
widely dispersed moth, such as LBAM in California, and wide dispersion and not being
specific to any one place or crop is the exact nature of LBAM.

CDFA Management continues to use the Pink bollworm moth as an example of
eradication that sterile moth release has accomplished. But anyone familiar with the pink
bollworm moth knows that this moth lives exclusively in and around cotton fields and
that the sterile moth release did not eradicate even this moth. It simply was used in
conjunction with massive amounts of other pesticides and other methods to assist control
of this moth. Because LBAM does not live in one crop environment, and for the other
reasons mentioned above, sterile moth release cannot practically even be used to assist
eradication, let alone eradicate, as CDFA Management would want us to believe. That
CDFA would want us to believe that sterile moth release is the answer to LBAM
eradication when initial tests have not even begun is an insult to the public and absurd in
any characterization of science.

Background #3: It is not particularly difficult for any private citizen to contact another
country where LBAM arrived previously and find out what is happening in that country
today. LBAM came to New Zealand 150 years ago, to Hawaii 100 years ago and more
recently to Europe where they don't even bother to monitor or restrict its entry or
movement. After dozens and dozens of contacts now, when a vegetable farmer or
orchard farmer or grape vineyard farmer is contacted in these countries, typically the
farmer cannot understand the interest in LBAM. LBAM simply is not a pest that is of
any significance to any of these people in any of these countries. With normal farm
techniques, LBAM is controlled while controlling other insects without focusing or
singling out LBAM.17, 18, 19, 20, 21

The only place in the world that LBAM has been found to be a significant pest of damage
to farm crops, forests and backyard gardens is in the virtual world of CDFA press
releases, CDFA communications to the public and elected officials and on the CDFA
website, nowhere else. The United States places a zero LBAM tolerance on some New
Zealand crops so there are extra inspections for the New Zealanders who export to the
US, but not a problem of crop loss from LBAM.

What stands out is the bewilderment of these foreign growers trying to understand why
California would single out such a benign insect when so many other true pests do exist,
and particularly why California would add $100's of millions of dollars of pesticides of
any kind and by any method to its populated non agriculture lands for such an innocuous
and unimportant insect.
Background #4: In communications with dozens of entomologists, not a single one thinks
that LBAM can be eradicated. The most senior scientists with complete job security speak
directly against the CDFA LBAM eradication program.17 The others agree, yet the vast
majority of entomologists are not able to speak out since their career research funding
and/or agriculture industry employment is very much linked to their relationship with the
CDFA.22 An open investigation of CDFA Management would allow these entomologists
and other scientists to speak out without fear of reprisal or retribution.


An independent investigation into the CDFA LBAM eradication program will quickly
demonstrate the erroneous messages delivered and the unnecessary LBAM eradication
program perpetrated by CDFA. An investigation will isolate the real scientists within
the CDFA from the Management because the scientists at the CDFA will unlikely
commit perjury to support the fraud and deception that has been delivered by
CDFA Management to California's agriculture community, elected officials, the
press and the general population.23

In daily and routine analysis, CDFA scientists are pressured to get the results that CDFA
Management is looking for to access the emergency funding. Even many industry and
university entomologists are under direct or indirect pressure from CDFA due to CDFA
research funding or CDFA contracts with the companies that entomologists represent.
Under investigation, A. G. Kawmanura, Steve Lyle and John Connell will no longer be in
the position to conveniently piece together and misrepresent information from CDFA
entomologists and other scientists.

The huge majority of entomologists and other scientists within the CDFA are not proud
to be associated with an LBAM eradication program that in the words of those who have
privately spoken out lacks integrity.


CDFA Management, specifically Kawmanura, Lyle, Connell and others have created a
hoax to generate a bogus emergency LBAM eradication program in order to access
$100's of millions of dollars of emergency funds. They have methodically lied and
delivered false information to create the program and maintain it. The three dominant
bogus claims they make are (1) LBAM is currently damaging and a further threat to
California crops, forests and backyard gardens, (2) LBAM is a recent arrival to California
and (3) CDFA can successfully eradicate LBAM. There is no difference of opinion in the
science of these three areas. Rather, there are these three absurd assertions by the CDFA
versus legitimate science, common sense and continued observation that denies all three
bogus assertions. CDFA has used old USDA information that may have been inaccurate
originally, but certainly, with modern farming methods and integrated pest management,
is inaccurate and outdated today. LBAM is no more harmful than any of the three
hundred other low impact Tortricidae (leaf roller) moths that live in California. CDFA
Management disguises their greed for emergency funds as a noble determination to

CDFA implements, monitors and reports on the moth, the status of the eradication
program and the safety of the program. There is no separation of powers so there are no
checks and balances on a dishonest program and the reports from CDFA are always
consistent with whatever is necessary to get hold of the emergency funds. It would be
consistent with other known CDFA lies and misinformation if CDFA Management is also
manipulating "Suspected" LBAM finds to represent actual LBAM finds and to find or not
find LBAM larva or eggs whenever it suits their purposes.


It would be reasonable to have an investigation so that CDFA Management is not
overseeing the program they are implementing. CDFA Management tried to pretend
damage from LBAM with misleading comments to the press and the public, with bogus
pictures and with pleas to the court. All have been rejected.

It would be reasonable to halt all LBAM eradication activities until such time that LBAM
damage can be demonstrated by an independent entity not influenced by CDFA
Management. LBAM is simply part of the food chain. LBAM has truly been in
California for 30-50 years or more and done no damage. As we wait to see and 30-50
more years pass still without LBAM damage, $100's of millions of dollars will have been
saved and be available for real emergencies. People too will have been spared a variety
of toxic chemicals unnecessarily applied to the communities where people work, live and
raise families.

Professor Chase, the author:

Glen Chase is a Professor of Systems Management specializing in Environmental
Economics and Statistics. Glen served as an Associate Professor teaching graduate level
courses in Systems Management at USC for eight years. He has taught at multiple
universities in the Central Coast area, including The Naval Post Graduate School, The
Monterey Institute of International Studies and Cal State University, Monterey Bay.
Glen is also a Management Consultant. Currently, Professor Chase develops
management systems to assist organizations that cater to the improvement of life for
children with disabilities.

Background Note: the area of Systems Management within Chase's field involves
management, communication and integration of complex and often highly specialized
sciences. Systems Management was not generally recognized 100 years ago, when a
single scientist could be a master of all areas related to his/her work. Today, it is essential.

Professor Chase's first report (
revealed the falsehoods CDFA delivered after June 19 when courts and public pressure stopped
the CDFA from aerial spraying synthetic pheromone based pesticides directly on cities.
Professor Chase's second report (
revealed the fraud and misinformation delivered by CDFA from fall 2007 until June 19, 2008.
References / notes

1 Santa Cruz Sentinel, 01/05/2008, Shanna McCord - Sentinel staff writer: "Group alleges
hundreds got sick after moth spraying"

2 Anna Werner - CBS 5 Investigates: Is Apple Moth Really A Risk? 4/15/08.

3 Sonoma County Board of Supervisors meeting, 7/8/08.

4-1 LBAM in California: The True Story: Summary & References, Page 5, #6a "CDFA has
asserted potential damage estimates from the LBAM with no scientific basis", Professor
Glen Chase "The only
documented costs of LBAM on this earth were during the previous century when a Southern Hemisphere
country widely sprayed an organophosphate pesticide killing the natural predators of LBAM and many
other insects. When the spraying stopped, the natural predators returned and LBAM again required no
control and did no damage. The costs the CDFA use to project California costs for projected LBAM
damage are unsubstantiated. The costs were not from damage by the LBAM, but rather almost entirely
from the cost of executing the spraying program, which was creating the problem."

4-2 It is not within the biology of LBAM to decimate crops and plants. CDFA is mandating
using bad practices as part of their quarantine protocols and possibly setting up a
situation where LBAM does get as bad as it can by eliminating the natural controls.

5 CA Farm Bureau, 9/3/08, Kate Campbell, Assistant Editor, [next to last paragraph]

6 James Carey, Ph.D. " Invasion Biology of the Light Brown Apple Moth, Presentation to
Assembly California Legislature, Committee on Agriculture, March 12, 2008, [See Report #24]

7 "Consensus Statement on Human Health Aspects of the Aerial Application of
Microencapsulated Pheromones to Combat the Light Brown Apple Moth" October 31,
2007, by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) & the Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)", [page 4, last paragraph, line 1.]

8 Figure #3 on page 6 of the letter from the CDFA to Drs. Knepp & Hafferman in the
following reference:

9 "Consensus Statement on Human Health Aspects of the Aerial Application of
Microencapsulated Pheromones to Combat the Light Brown Apple Moth" October 31,
2007, by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) & the Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)", [page 2, paragraph #3, lines #7-10.]

10 Air Force Major Tim Wilcox's 11-month-old healthy baby Jack goes into respiratory
arrest following the aerial spray. (14:59)
11 "Consensus Statement on Human Health Aspects of the Aerial Application of
Microencapsulated Pheromones to Combat the Light Brown Apple Moth" October 31,
2007, by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) & the Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)", [page 4, paragraph #4, lines #5-10.]

12 "Summary of Symptom Reports in Areas of Aerial Pheromone Application for
Management of LBAM in Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties September, October, and
November. 2007"

13 A Coalition of California Cities to Stop the Spray.


15 April 16, 2008 Knepp / Hafferman letter to EATF, page 6.

16 CBS 5 Investigates With Ana Werner: State Drops Plan For Bay Area Moth Spraying

17 Carey, Zalom, Hammock Letter. A one-page letter from UC Davis Entomology &
Agriculture Distinguished Professors to the USDA, May 28, 2008.

18 Dan Harder, Ph.D. Executive Director Arboretum, University of California at Santa
Cruz, Premier World Botanist regarding LBAM in California: "Integrated Pest
Management Practices for the Light Brown Apple Moth in New Zealand: Implications
for California" March 6, 2008 [See Report #21]

19 Dr. Daniel Harder, "Scientist’s Research Showing Apple Moth a Minor Pest in New
Zealand Stands Solid in Face of State’s Partial Facts. State Efforts to Discredit Report
Rely on Partial and Incorrect Information" April 2, 2008.

20 Len Richardson, Editor, California Farmer, "Exotic moth policy must change" May 2008.

21 Jeff Rosendale, Grower, Horticultural Consultant, co author of Dan Harder integrated
Pest Management Report above. "Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) 101"

22 Presentation to Assembly California Legislature, Committee on Agriculture, Room 4202
State Capital" March 12, 2008. (15:27)

23 CBS news investigative sight with further references that demonstrate CDFA Management
misinformation, etc.

Anonymous said...

Title: Aerial Pesticide Spraying is Not off the Table!
START DATE: Monday October 27
TIME: 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM
Location Details:
Live Oak Grange, 1900 17th Ave., Santa Cruz
Event Type: Meeting

We are initiating a new approach to activism – instead of begging at regulatory hearings, we’re making our own local laws in the name of people’s actual needs - which corporations have been doing for years!

Join us to learn about the proposed:


Monday, Oct 27th – 7 pm
LIVE OAK GRANGE, 1900 17th Ave.

BEN PRICE of Community Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) and SHANNON BIGGS of Global Exchange will lead us in learning how we can assert our inalienable rights and put this ordinance into effect in the City of Santa Cruz!

Contact PACTsc [at]
A project of Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, and
California Alliance to Stop the Spray.

Anonymous said...

For Immediate Release: November 6, 2008

New study reveals more violations of the law by CDFA

Environmental groups, citizen advocates react to results of environmental monitoring during aerial spraying for Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM)

Santa Cruz, CA. (November 6, 2008) Just a few days before the one-year anniversary of the aerial spraying for Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) in Santa Cruz, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) released a report by the Department for Pesticide Regulations (DPR) about the results of environmental monitoring during pesticide applications in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties.

While CDFA claims that this study proves the safety of the chemicals used, environmental groups and citizen advocates say that statement is misleading and point out fundamental shortcomings of the report. Rather, they argue, the report reveals another breach of the law by CDFA as it states that considerable drift occurred during aerial spraying in 2007. The study also confirms observations made by affected residents of inconsistencies in the dosage of the pesticides, creating whole clusters of illness. Detailed reactions follow.

1. The study is inadequate in determining toxicity of the chemicals sprayed, as it takes into account only the active ingredient of the pesticides, a synthetic pheromone. The so-called inert ingredients are not being examined, although those ingredients are of great concern. Some inert ingredients have established carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reproductive toxicities, others are toxic to aquatic species.

Says Santa Cruz resident Paulina Borsook “This report persists CDFA’s disingenuous practice of looking at the most benign components of the spray only and then calling the whole product ‘safe’. The agency’s behavior is completely irresponsible. CDFA continues to put families, pets, wildlife and fragile ecosystems at risk, and insults those that already have been hurt.”

Quote: “The Check Mate products also contain several inert ingredients, but these were not monitored.” (p. 2)

2. While deficient in determining toxicity of the spray, the new study conducted by DPR, reveals evidence of further abuses of the law by CDFA. The report states that pesticide drift was measured as far as 3.3 miles outside of the spray zone. This is a clear violation of section 12972 in the California Agriculture Code: “The use of any pesticide by any person shall be in such a manner as to prevent substantial drift to nontarget areas.”

Quote: “Drift of the product was detected at considerable distance from the application boundary, 3.97 ug/ft2 (1.15 percent of the target application rate) at 17,400 feet in one instance.” ( p. 12)

Says Soquel resident Isabelle Jenniches “I live outside the spray zone, but we could feel and smell the spray. My husband and I had red eyes, dry mouths, and accelerated heart rates for days. My neighbor suffered a terrible asthma attack, the first in years. It is a well-known fact that airborne pesticides can drift for miles. This dangerous practice has to stop for good!”

During aerial spray operations last year, the pilots were to leave buffer zones around waterways and along the ocean. The now confirmed pesticide drift rendered these buffer zones meaningless. Storm run-off made things worse: after the spraying a thick yellow foam was observed in the water. Surfers reported the worst red tide in 40 years, which may have been fueled by phosphates and surfactants in the spray.

Says Frank Egger, president of the North Coast River Alliance “When I saw the photographs of thick yellow foam in the ocean after spraying, I knew that our waters had been contaminated. We now have proof of this. This is an outrageous violation of both state and federal laws and further puts endangered species such as steelhead trout and Coho salmon in jeopardy.”

3. The study also finds that pesticide capsules were not evenly distributed within the carrier substance (water), leading to inconsistent deposition rates of the spray. This may explain why some entire families became very ill when neighbors across the street did not. One property received a much larger exposure to chemicals than the other.

Quote: “The tank sample results showed a large amount of variability between samples for the same treatment and even within analysis of a single sample. […]The cause of the variability could be due to several factors. It was noticed that the microcapsules tend to separate out of the mixture quickly and require constant mixing.” (pp. 9 & 10)

The deposition study by the Department of Pesticide Regulations can be found at the CDFA website

Anonymous said...

Average Salary of $90k per year is a croc of youknowwhat!!

They pay lower than industry standards for all professional positions. You can check online what the range of pay is for chemists, engineers and managers and I CAN GAURANTEE they don't pay anywhere near the median pay for those positions.