Assembly Bills That Are
Related To The LBAM Issue
on the CASS Position
and CASS Commentary
on LBAM Assembly Bills
Statement on the CASS Position
is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit educational
organization, which means we are
prohibited by law from lobbying
for or against any legislation.
We deeply honor the efforts of all
who are trying to stop the spraying
of urban and residential areas with
toxic substances against the will
of many. We offer analysis aligned
with that stand. We encourage each
person to decide for him or herself
what to support, and to decide for
themselves, not for others, if they
want to have their persons and property
Our efforts are designed to inform
people of the laws, the facts, and
the critical distinctions by which
we can better safeguard the fundamental
rights to safety and privacy which
are already individually ours.
Our mission statement expresses
our commitment to protect the right
of each person not to be sprayed
and that has been the central aligning
principle of all our activities.
It is hard to imagine that citizens
would have voluntarily agreed to
be sprayed for years from airplanes
with untested pesticides and other
ingredients known to be health hazards.
All of this for a moth that is managed
easily and safely in other countries.
This assault is unnecessary, profitdriven,
ineffective, dangerous and in violation
of our core human rights. Yet now,
in the flurry of legislative bills
from well-intentioned representatives,
we find many of us trying to negotiate
the terms of the spray without regard
to the unconstitutionality of it.
By doing so, we unwittingly surrender
our fundamental right to safety,
and help to continue a pattern of
supporting laws that strip away
protections that we and all citizens
naturally have. Human rights are
not given by the state, so the state
should not have the power to take
them away. The state is created
by the agreement of individuals
to protect the rights we all have
by natural law. (“We take these
truths to be self evident.’) There
is only one dissenting vote in a
lynch mob, but the individual’s
right to life and liberty, in a
just civilization, has to supersede
the will of the collective.
It is well documented that safe
solutions to potential LBAM related
crop damage issues already exist.
By taking a stand to uphold our
already existing rights, we put
the pressure to address the trade
problem back on to the Big Ag and
Big Chem interests, through the
USDA. Trade problems require trade
reforms. Pest problems call for
sustainable, safe and constitutional
solutions. Humanity has survived
thus far without surrendering to
blanket spraying without consent.
Why would we give up our ability
to decide for ourselves to a bureaucrat,
a politician or even a majority
of those choosing to vote in the
name of some hypothetical scenario
which has never occurred?
Those of us who have made the commitment
to get educated on the current LBAM
issue are now in the precarious
role of advocating for policies
that have potential life and death
consequences for millions of people.
Agreeing to be sprayed under ANY
conditions, with or without a vote,
by an elected official or otherwise,
is agreeing to risk the lives of
fellow citizens, jeopardize the
livelihood for our community members
and forfeit rights of others that
are not ours to give.
In the last 100 years there were
more than 30 documented cases of
US Government agencies, including
the USDA, EPA, Army, Navy, CIA,
Department of Defense and others,
intentionally testing harmful chemicals
covertly on human populations. At
least sixteen of these involved
aerial spraying. In addition to
the Medfly/Malathion debacle, the
USDA claimed safety for DDT chemical
pesticides and fertilizer nitrates.
Subsequently they have had to admit
the extreme dangers of all of these
and many more.
The Declaration of Independence
and the US and CA Constitutions
are not inspiring because of their
strategy or compromise, but because
of their integrity, their intuitive
resonance with what each of us knows
in our heart of hearts to be true.
Hundreds of thousands of people
in the San Francisco and Monterey
Bay areas are starting to mobilize
against this assault on our health,
our environment and our rights.
The nation and the world will be
It is up to us to refuse to be violated,
and to implement true, healthy and
lasting solutions – for ourselves
and for future generations.
Summary and CASS Commentary
of Intended Benefits and Problems
with LBAM Assembly Bills
117 - Laird
* Transfers the burden of proof
of safety to the government
* Requires addressing the health,
scientific, environment and efficacy
* Requires a plan on monitoring
and tracking, requires air sampling
and analysis of health outcomes
* Requires determining how to respond
to the 600+ health complaints and
an independent analysis of impacts
on health and the environment. (which
the USDA/CDFA is supposed to already
2765 - Huffman
* Requires a public hearing (which
the bypassed EIR was supposed to
* Requires exploring alternatives
to aerial spraying, (which the USDA/CDFA
is supposed to already be doing)
* Requires full disclosure of ingredients
and a certification of safety.
2763 - Laird
* Requires a list of possible eradication
targets and strategies.
Requires an EIR before spraying
urban areas with pesticide. (which
was already supposed to be in place.)
2764 - Hancock
* Rescind the quasi-governmental,
unelected bureaucrat’s ability to
unilaterally inflict the spray,
(BUT still leaves it solely in the
hands of one person, the Governor)
2892 - Swanson
* Requires public participation
(2/3 vote) but this could be the
worst mistake of all. It puts into
law the violation of the individual’s
rights as written in the CA and
US Constitutions, to have their
safety, property and privacy protected.
87 - Migden
* Requires USDA/CDFA to demonstrate
that the compound is safe and effective.
(It would be very easy for the CDFA
or the USDA to get the EPA to offer
such assurance as they have in numerous
incidents in the past.)
All of these bills assume that
the rights of the individual to
not have their person and property
violated will be surrendered to
someone else other than the individual!
This is historic and dangerous to
human rights, health and the environment.
If the bills fail, it is vital that
this not communicate to the CDFA
that they have won and will be free
to spray. If the bills succeed,
then hopefully it stops the spray
and buys the time for us to restore
our unalienable rights of each individual
not to be sprayed without consent.
version of above summary)