Friday, December 30, 2005

Contacts:
Patty Clary, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics 707 445-5100 or 834-4833 Lowell Downey, People Opposed to Insecticide Spraying On Neighborhoods, Napa, CA 707 257-1166 POISON

Court Guns Down State Plan to Poison Pest of Wine Grapes: Panel
Requires Thorough Analysis of Spraying of Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter

(San Francisco)--An appeals court, acting on a suit brought by three
citizen environmental groups, has rejected a state plan to use an
array of 30 pesticides to contain the glassy-winged sharpshooter, an
insect scourge of wine-grape vines.

The three-judge 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that a new Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be completed by the Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA). It also told a lower court to decide whether state spraying to control the insect should be suspended until the new analysis is prepared.

The suit, which was fought by the powerful wine industry, was brought by Californians for Alternatives to Toxics (CATs), the lead plaintiff, and People Opposed to Insecticide Spraying On Neighborhoods (POISON) and PublicEmployees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

At issue was whether the DFA could rely merely on the label restrictions on the dozens of pesticides--many of them serious nerve toxins--that potentially could be employed. The appeals court held that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an environmental analysis that produces "specific data as needed to meaningfully assess whether the proposed activities would result in significant impacts."

DFA, the court held, "fell far short of these standards."

Expressing satisfaction with the decision, Patty Clary of
Eureka-based CATs said: "Californians have the right to know what dangers come with pesticide spraying that's forced on them to protect a major industry and our state agencies must alter their programs to prevent such harm. The court has affirmed that no industry or government agency is above these fundamental laws."

Noting that the DFA plan made little distinction between spray sites,
Lowell Downey of POISON said: "Our biggest concern has always been for pregnant women, children and the elderly-those people who have zero tolerance for toxic exposure. This ruling should send a clear message that the state cannot buckle under to the pressure of economic interests without considering the consequences to the people."