Our Rights Get a Dose of Malathion : Aerial Spraying: It won’t solve the problem of unwanted insects. But it will expose innocent people to unknown risks.

Should saturation aerial spraying of any pesticide be permitted in densely populated communities, or even sparsely populated ones? Is it right or legal to expose more than 1 million men, women and children to toxic chemicals without their approval and against their will, as is the case in Los Angeles?

Aerial spraying of pesticides on urban populations is a flagrant violation of human rights, common sense and scientific reasoning. It will not solve the problem of unwanted insects and will only expose innocent people to as-yet-unknown risks of toxic chemicals.

The malathion spraying controversy has at least two major overlapping considerations. First, is this insecticide exposure safe for humans, whether from the air, food or water? Second, even if malathion should be found to be relatively safe to use on vegetation by trained personnel wearing special protective clothing, does it necessarily follow that indiscriminate aerial spraying from helicopters onto densely populated urban areas would also be safe and reasonable?

The immediate toxicity of malathion may be less than that of its precursor, parathion, but it’s still capable of causing harm to the brain and nervous system, such as convulsions or paralysis, if enough is absorbed into the body. More likely, the diluted concentrations in aerial spraying might cause flu-like symptoms, such as headache, diarrhea, cramps and anxiety. These would be difficult for physicians to diagnose as chemical reactions.

With many square miles being sprayed, there is no way of knowing how many children will play and roll on malathion-contaminated grounds days or weeks after spraying. Little is known about the variable effects of the chemical on the young, the ill and the developing fetus of a pregnant woman.

The effects depend on many factors. These include the chemical’s relative toxicity, the route of entry, the age of the individual and his or her state of health.

It is difficult to predict how long toxic pesticides remain in the ground. What happens to even a so-called milder toxic pesticide like malathion when it is hosed off autos and driveways and ends up concentrated on beaches where children play? What about contamination of reservoirs that hold our drinking water?

The Environmental Protection Agency has ordered more long-term studies on the hazards of malathion because of reports showing that it may cause cancer in mice as well as human birth defects.

In spite of this, current laws and health policies do not prevent Americans, including small children, pregnant women and the elderly, from being exposed to saturation spraying.

Long-term studies on human cancer and birth defects often take years or decades to discover whether a particular chemical can cause catastrophic illnesses in humans.

The emotional trauma--particularly stressful to children awakened by low-flying helicopters, as in a recent case--has been amply documented. It’s frightening. It’s intrusive. The typical reaction is, “We have no control over this. We have to totally go on faith in the government that the pesticide is safe.” Yet we cannot help recalling that Agent Orange, a combination of two other pesticides, was also considered safe by our government when it was sprayed in Vietnam on people below, including many of our own soldiers.

Do we really need to spray any toxic chemicals on human populations? It has been repeatedly shown that insects can never be permanently eliminated by chemicals. In fact, it is known that insects adjust to pesticide exposure by eventually becoming resistant to its effects.

In a recent issue of Science magazine, a prominent professor of entomology said, “The wholesale use of chemical pesticides is an approach whose time should be past. Annual crop losses to insects were 7% in the 1940s, and (in spite of increased pesticide use) rose to 13% in the 1980s.”

Destructive insects can be controlled by combinations of non-chemical farming techniques and, if needed, chemicals applied locally from the ground. The fact that respraying is being done in some areas here reaffirms its lack of adequate effectiveness. Even top Los Angeles County and state experts are beginning to question the effectiveness of spraying.

Isn’t it enough that Los Angeles is already putting up with one of the worst records in air and water contamination? Since aerial spraying remains ineffective, unpredictable in risk and a gross violation of human rights, it’s time we use every legal means to so inform our officials.