Spraying: Not to Worry?

Protests against nighttime sprays of malathion from helicopters are popping up with increasing regularity. Celebrity marches in Westwood, angry public meetings in Monterey Park, court challenges in Orange County are all unequivocal signs of the growing political polarization over repeated attempts to wipe out the Medfly in heavily populated Southern California.

County and state officials, if they insist, can continue to treat the protests as barely tolerable nuisances. But that approach will feed fear and likely erode support for the state’s current campaign to save fruit crops. Or they can attempt to address the reasonable health concerns raised by many Southern California residents. That could quell public fears and restore full public support for the battle. Whatever they do, officials must acknowledge what should by now be obvious: The fight against the Medfly cannot be treated as strictly an agricultural problem.

Los Angeles and Orange County residents are told regularly to cover their cars, shut their windows, bring in their pets--but not to worry. Health monitoring done almost 10 years ago in Santa Clara County during and after malathion spraying there indeed suggests that people who live in sprayed areas have no reason to worry. Yet many still have legitimate questions about health effects for their families--today, in Southern California.

Although the Environmental Protection Agency says that the health implications of malathion have not been fully researched, state and local public health officials say that the Santa Clara studies should reassure Southern Californians. Local health officials add that they have received only a handful of very minor health complaints from physicians’ reports to the health department. The health officials seem puzzled that such facts don’t mollify. But what is missing in the official reaction is context. Southern Californians are already on environmental overload. They live under a blanket of thick brown smog that officials insist is improving; in cities where cloudy water comes from the tap, although officials say that it is as good as or better than any bottled water; with beaches that are world-renowned but where many local parents, mindful of sewage spills, won’t allow their children to swim. In that context, ongoing aerial spraying of pesticide, however important its purpose, is apparently one environmental question too many for a lot of folks.

So, what to do? Southern California could start by taking a lesson from Santa Clara County in 1981. When anger over malathion spraying reached a near fever pitch there, a committee was formed of trusted scientists, physicians, health officials and environmentalists to advise state health officials. The monitoring included telephone surveys of a representative group of about 300 people inside and outside of the spray area. After the survey started, some symptoms that could be attributed to community stress--headaches, difficulty sleeping--actually decreased, according to Dr. Richard Jackson, the state’s environmental health chief.

Additional long-term studies on miscarriage and birth defects found no persuasive association between malathion exposure and human health. This program, which tracked defects by area, ethnic group and other key indicators, has since been expanded statewide and now is a national model. (Of the state’s 58 counties, Los Angeles is the only one that still is not part of the program; pending legislation by state Sen. Diane Watson would remedy that.)

Southern California’s medical and political leaders need to work together to come up with a trusted expert committee of the type formed in Santa Clara that can quickly address health concerns raised by malathion spraying. Already, state Sen. Art Torres (D-Los Angeles) has introduced anti-malathion spraying legislation that has been embraced by many environmentalists and reviled by agriculture interests; Orange County cities have filed lawsuits. In the absence of respect for public concerns, political polarization will fill the gap.