It is a scandal indeed that gov’t agencies legally can have squirted chemicals over a town while refusing to say what they all are.

But the epidemiology in this story isn’t. Kay leads on a family fearful their infant son’s respiratory illness was triggered by the spraying (a near simultaneous event), and understandably furious that nobody at the state seems to care. This is an old but dangerous formula in enviro writing: Something unusual occurs in the air or water or food supply. People get sick. Looks like cause and effect. Here are profiles of frightened, sick people and their families. If one goes no further than that, what is a reader to think other than that the reporter is convinced those ailing are, in fact, victims of bad policy?

The story has next to nothing on such important questions as whether the anxiety is backed by any suggestion of more illness than usual, or the ease with which a segment of the public can see a link where none exists.

Four days later, and somewhat ironically, the Chronicle published an article, by medical reporter Sabin Russell, with the headline, “Health experts can’t link spraying to illness.” Unlike Kay’s earlier work, Russell’s piece was careful to address some of the specifics that Petit had called for at the Tracker. Unlike Kay’s earlier, front-page story, however, it was buried far inside the paper, on page B-4. According to the article:

Three-quarters of the citizen reports failed to pinpoint the time or place of possible exposure to the spray, according to the state analysis, and “very few” provided addresses to help researchers match exposure to location.

The state study also noted that, although there were 75 reports of patients seeking medical care after the spraying, most of the reports - even those requiring medical attention - were consistent with rates of common respiratory problems.

Apart from Russell’s article, however, the Chronicle seemed hell-bent on proving that pheromone spraying was unnecessary. In March, about a month before her story about the health complaints from spraying, Kay wrote another story that presented the cases of four scientists opposed to the spraying - two renowned UC Davis entomologists, a UC Berkeley agro-ecologist, and a UC Santa Cruz botanist. Kay did not offer a response from the government scientists, except to say: “In the face of criticism, U.S. Department of Agriculture and California Department of Food and Agricultural scientists stand firm that there must be quick aerial spraying to eliminate the moth.”

The question that Kay never addressed, but should have, was why the USDA scientists stood firm behind the pheromone spraying. Combined, they have hundreds of years of experience in invasive moth research; as agriculture department spokesman Steve Lyle said, “It’s not an even playing field on the science. There are just a few people in the world who are experts on this.” In the bowels of her article about the scientific opposition to spraying, Kay inconspicuously disclosed: “The pheromones aren’t toxic to moths, animals or people, they say, but curtail moth populations by disrupting mating.” It may have been scientifically possible to refute that statement, but Chronicle never even seemed to try. Two months later, in another editorial, it was still blindly equating pheromones to more traditional pesticides:

It can’t get more obvious than this: Rooftop crop-dusting across the Bay Area unnerves people and demands serious explaining.

Such misleading statements, combined with a general apathy about digging up whatever government scientific information is available, are not helpful to readers. The Chronicle’s coverage reflected a belief that scientists working for the government, even ones with long and seemingly credible histories, aren’t worth talking to. The paper had an opportunity to introduce a voice of moderation into the hysteria surrounding the spraying. Instead, it rode with the public’s fear.

There is a reasonable scientific debate here, especially about the effectiveness of pheromone treatments, and the length of time the moth has been in California. It was quite reasonable to demand further testing on the safety of this particular formulation of Checkmate, and a dumb error by the state not to have done so before it started spraying. Following the public backlash, California agreed to produce a detailed environmental impact report by the fall. One imagines, however, that the same outcome might have been reached without hyping a bunch of ambiguous illnesses —journalistically, there are more responsible ways to hold the state accountable.

The USDA scientific working group’s original recommendation was, in fact, to pursue pheromone treatment while developing other, better methods. And after all the hyperbole, that’s how the story ultimately seems to have ended. Two weeks ago, the state decided it had found a better method, one that utilized the latest in sterile-moth-release-technology. With no new or better information about the toxicity of the pheromone, the governor called off spraying in urban areas, leaving the drama-ridden public debate over the safety of the pheromone largely unanswered. And now, probably, irrelevant.

• 1
• 2