Bradley, Others Do an About-Face in Waving Anti-Malathion Banner : News ANALYSIS

Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley joined the anti-malathion battle just two weeks ago--later than many critics, but with a stand that undoubtedly pleased the growing movement against aerial spraying.

“Malathion,” the mayor proclaimed in a press release, “is a matter of great concern. I strongly feel the state must prove to us that the Medfly spraying is safe.”

Nine years ago, however, as a Medfly infestation spread throughout portions of Northern California, Bradley, then in the midst of his 1981 gubernatorial campaign, took a far different stand. Citing a “preponderance of opinion that there was no health hazard,” Bradley declared he had “come down on the side of immediate spraying.”

Not content with lending only moral support to the cause, the mayor volunteered the use of city helicopters to spray pesticide over Southern California, which had a small Medfly outbreak at the same time as the 1980-82 Northern California infestation.

The mayor is not alone in changing his mind.

Legislators who once clamored for Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. to save the state’s agriculture industry with immediate malathion spraying have become some of today’s most vocal leaders in trying to stop the state’s malathion assault on the Medfly.

Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sepulveda), for example, voted for a resolution in 1981 demanding immediate spraying to fend off the threatened Medfly disaster. This year, Katz authored his own resolution demanding just the opposite.

Some of the politicians who switched positions said they did so because they have learned more with the passage of time or they believe the state should develop less intrusive ways of combating the fly--such as increased use of sterile flies to breed the pests out of existence.

In a statement issued through his press office last week, Bradley echoed the thoughts of others who have switched positions by explaining that much more is known today about the health effects of malathion.

But over the last nine years, there have been few scientific breakthroughs to prove or disprove the pesticide’s safety. In fact, today’s heated debate over malathion’s possible link to cancer or the efficiency of aerial spraying against the Medfly is lifted almost verbatim from the crisis nine years ago.

Brown warned then, just as many officials have warned today, that even if there is only a sliver of doubt, the public health must come first in any decision concerning aerial spraying.

Some of the most controversial figures of the time also have surfaced again this year, raising essentially the same arguments. For example, health officials Marc Lappe and Melvin Reuber stunned state officials in 1981 with their attacks against state and federal reports that gave the pesticide a clean bill of health.

Both Lappe and Reuber have spoken out again this year, arousing the same controversy as before.

So what has changed?

After four straight years of malathion spraying in Southern California, public opinion has made a sharp turn, indicated by recent polls and the widespread outcry that had not developed during previous infestations in Southern California. The change in public opinion has not escaped notice in City Hall or Sacramento.

Also, many of these politicians represent areas that were only minimally affected by earlier sprayings and are now finding themselves increasingly under fire by constituents whose homes have been sprayed repeatedly.

Gubernatorial politics also played a much larger role in the 1981 Medfly battle.

Bradley’s outspoken support of spraying barely drew a complaint nine years ago. The major exception was his gubernatorial opponent, George Deukmejian, who battled mightily to outdo his opponent for the crucial farm vote.

“You know George Deukmejian is not a fair-weather farmer,” he said in a 1981 campaign speech from heart of the farm-rich San Joaquin Valley. “You know I have been your friend for two decades. . . . And you know that when I give you my word I don’t owe one single thing to the labor bosses and the environmental activists that surround Tom Bradley.”

This year, both Bradley and Deukmejian have kept a low profile on the spraying issue and have said little on the topic until recently, although Deukmejian has remained committed to the program. Gubernatorial candidates Republican Pete Wilson and Democrats Dianne Feinstein and John K. Van de Kamp have yet to embrace aerial spraying as a campaign issue, although Van de Kamp, as attorney general, has called for a study of whether malathion should be more heavily regulated.

The issue of aerial spraying has been a tough one for legislators.

In 1981, 86 state legislators voted in favor of Assembly and Senate resolutions demanding that Brown start aerial spraying. Supporters of the resolutions included Katz, Sen. David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles), Assemblyman Richard L. Mountjoy (R-Monrovia), all 14 Senate representatives from Los Angeles and Orange counties voting that day and 16 of 24 local Assembly members who cast votes on the issue.

Roberti also voted in favor of a Senate bill that would have forced Brown to start aerial spraying. The measure was unanimously passed.

In the current debate, Katz, Roberti and Mountjoy have taken visible roles in the battle to stop malathion spraying over Southern California.

Although many of the legislative seats have changed hands since the 1981 Medfly debate, already 21 of 55 Los Angeles and Orange County lawmakers have signed letters, supported resolutions or joined lawsuits against malathion spraying.

Mountjoy and Katz signed a highly publicized protest letter against spraying that was sent to the governor last week. “The health of over a million Californians is just too important for you to continue this ‘spray now, ask questions later’ policy,” the letter stated.

Katz and Roberti also are party to a lawsuit filed against the state by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, aimed at stopping aerial pesticide spraying over urban areas.

Roberti said in an interview last week that he supported spraying in 1981 because he believed it was the only way at the time to eradicate the Medfly. He said he has changed his mind because the state has had nine years to develop alternative strategies, such as greater use of sterile flies, but has done little.

“It was a proper vote,” he said. “What was reasonable then is not reasonable now. At this point, the concerns about public health outweigh anything else.”

Katz was more apologetic for his earlier vote, saying that he was naive nine years ago and has learned to be more skeptical of state policies.

“If we could all go back, we’d all do things differently,” he said. “You hope you learn to do better next time. In 10 years, I’ve learned to ask more questions and not trust the experts.”

A few legislators have stood their ground, in particular, Sen. Art Torres (D-Los Angeles) and Assemblyman Mike Roos (D-Los Angeles).

Both legislators cast votes against malathion spraying in 1981 and have become two of the most vocal leaders in the current battle to stop spraying.

The position adopted by Torres and Roos was not a popular one at the time. Newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, editorialized in 1981 by decrying the hysteria over spraying in Northern California and blaming it on “some particularly rabid environmentalists, abetted by irresponsible or ill-informed local politicians.”

Last week, The Times applauded news of the formation of a state health advisory committee to review scientific studies on malathion.