CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS PROPOSITION 135 : Growers Play Up Pesticide Measure’s Medfly Provision

Backers of Proposition 135, a grower-financed pesticide initiative on the November ballot, kicked off their campaign Monday by appealing to Southern Californians frustrated by aerial sprayings of malathion to eradicate the Mediterranean fruit fly.

Gathered in a wholesale fruit market in Los Angeles, the measure’s proponents made it clear they are out to defeat Proposition 128, a rival initiative known by its supporters as “Big Green.” That measure would ban at least 20 pesticides that cause cancer or birth defects in humans or laboratory animals.

“Our initiative does something that Proposition 128 does not do,” said Bob L. Vice, president of the California Farm Bureau Federation. “It speaks to the issue of the Medfly problem.”

By calling for doubling the production of sterile Medflies, the growers’ initiative is designed to tap into widespread irritation in Southern California over aerial spraying. Without banning spraying, Proposition 135 attempts to ensure a greater supply of sterile Medflies, which could reduce aerial pesticide application in future eradication campaigns.

Opponents of Proposition 135 denounced the Medfly provision as a “cynical ploy” to confuse voters about which measure actually does more to remove unsafe pesticides from the market. Indeed, many of the supporters of Proposition 135 have defended aerial spraying in the past, while some of the architects of Proposition 128, which does not address Medfly spraying, have been outspoken against the eradication campaign.

“The Department of Food and Agriculture already has the power to (increase sterile Medfly production). . . ,” said Proposition 128 supporter David Bunn, research director for Pesticide Watch, an environmental group. “Proposing this language is like a slap in the face, coming from the most vociferous advocates of spraying pesticides on people.”

Agricultural interests placed Proposition 135 on the ballot in an attempt to nullify the more stringent pesticide provisions in Proposition 128. If Proposition 135 gets more votes than its rival, the growers’ measure will become law. While Proposition 128 would create an elected environmental advocate to enforce environmental laws, the growers’ measure would make the governor-appointed secretary for environmental affairs responsible for overseeing pesticide laws.

Supporters of Proposition 135 say their measure would double the amount of testing for pesticide residue on foods. Opponents contend that the measure actually would reduce pesticide monitoring by transferring the cost of the program--now paid for in part by a tax on pesticides--to the general fund, which would be vulnerable to cutbacks during budget squeezes.

Proposition 135 also would keep responsibility for pesticide safety largely within the state Department of Food and Agriculture, which traditionally has defended pesticide use. The department would distribute $25 million set aside by the initiative for studies to find alternatives to dangerous pesticides.

Proposition 128, on the other hand, would transfer responsibility for testing to the Department of Health Services and give the environmental advocate responsibility for distributing $20 million in competitive grants for research into alternatives to the pesticides being phased out.

Supporters of Proposition 135 said they have raised $2 million toward a $5-million goal, with about 80% earmarked for television and radio advertising. Vice said the campaign has returned donations sent by chemical interests to ensure that voters will identify the initiative with farmers instead of pesticide makers.