THE TIMES POLL : Moratorium on Malathion Spraying Is Widely Backed

Amid growing public criticism of efforts to eradicate the Mediterranean fruit fly, Southern Californians surveyed by The Times strongly favor a halt to aerial malathion applications until more studies are done to assess the pesticide’s safety.

Asked about a spraying moratorium proposed by the California branch of the Sierra Club, 57% of the respondents said they wanted the aerial applications stopped. Only 32% favored continued spraying.

According to The Times Poll, which questioned 1,901 residents of Los Angeles and Orange counties between last Sunday and Wednesday, only one in seven strongly supported spraying.

Despite repeated assurances from state and local officials that malathion poses no health threat, the poll found widespread concern over risks posed by the pesticide, which has been sprayed over hundreds of square miles since authorities began battling the Medfly infestation last August.

One out of every five people whose neighborhoods have been sprayed complained of specific health problems they blamed on the pesticide.

Respondents were reminded of estimates that a spread of the infestation into the San Joaquin Valley could cost farmers, and eventually consumers, as much as $200 million a year. Nonetheless, 46% believed that the potential peril to human health from the spraying was a more important concern than the threat to the state’s agricultural industry. Sixteen percent thought protecting agriculture was the more important concern, and 29% thought the issues equal.

At the same time, when questioned on whether the expense of battling the Medfly in Southern California--estimated at $25 million and rising--was worth the savings to agriculture, respondents by a 2-1 margin said that it was.

The opposition to malathion spraying and the concerns about its impact were felt across the region, from Orange County to Los Angeles County, and in the city of Los Angeles as well. Members of minority groups polled, particularly blacks, were most concerned about the spraying and most insistent that it end.

Among political groups, Republicans tended to be more concerned about the potential impact on California’s agriculture industry if the Medfly infestation were to spread to the San Joaquin Valley. But even among Republicans, support for a moratorium on spraying outweighed opposition.

The poll has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

“People just naturally feel that personal health is more important than money,” said I. A. Lewis, director of the Los Angeles Times Poll. “There’s sort of an element of populism about that. . . . They felt there wasn’t enough concern for the people (being sprayed) and a great deal for agriculture.”

Lewis said that the findings suggest that the Medfly battle could again be a potent political issue, as it was in the early 1980s when, paradoxically, Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. was criticized sharply for not moving quickly enough to order aerial pesticide spraying.

Lewis said the political arguments then were centered more on the costs to agriculture because of the delays in spraying. Now, he said, “the other side of the argument is being focused on, and people are reacting to that. This is sort of justification for Jerry Brown.”

Perhaps surprisingly, there was little difference in opinion between those who said their neighborhoods had been sprayed at some time during the state’s repeated Medfly infestations, and those whose neighborhoods had not.

Of those who answered poll questions, 38% said they live in neighborhoods that had been sprayed. In Los Angeles, 37% said they had been sprayed, in Los Angeles County, 45%, and in Orange County, 21%. The percentage was highest among Latinos, 58% of whom said their neighborhoods had been sprayed.

The poll’s results confirm indications that opposition to the aerial applications have mounted as the eradication effort has stretched over months and expanded in geographical sweep.

The spraying began in Los Angeles County last August, and in Orange County last November--but it was not until this year that significant political reverberations began to be felt. So far, more than half a dozen cities have called for spraying moratoriums, and late last month the Sierra Club added its call. State Sen. Art Torres (D-Los Angeles) has introduced two bills to halt the malathion spraying pending a review.

Gov. George Deukmejian has defended the eradication effort as necessary in light of the projected $200-million damage that could accrue to agriculture if the Medfly spreads to the San Joaquin Valley.

Deukmejian and others have stressed that the damage of a Medfly spread would not be limited to farmers; it would likely be felt among consumers as well when the expense of treating produce grown in fields overrun by the Medfly are passed along. Even back-yard gardeners could find their harvests jeopardized if the eradication effort fails.

State officials have been stung by criticism that their decision to spray was arbitrary, and last week they said they will form a Southern California health advisory panel and will conduct air- and water-quality reviews in spray areas.

The current infestation is the largest in Southern California history, covering more than 370 square miles in Los Angeles and Orange counties. About 50 cities have been sprayed with the sticky mixture of corn syrup and malathion that is meant to attract and kill the pests.

Despite its size, however, the infestation is dwarfed by the Medfly assault on Northern California in 1981-82. That infestation was fought with dozens upon dozens of aerial applications of pesticide across nearly 1,500 square miles in eight counties.

The new poll indicated that many Southern Californians are skeptical of the job done by state and county officials in charge of the Medfly eradication program.

Three of every five people said the eradication effort has been “one-sided” in its attitude toward spraying, while only 19% said they felt people affected by the malathion applications have been consulted for their views.

The respondents were split on the question of whether those in the target zones had been warned of precautions to take before the spraying.

Asked if they believed malathion was an effective way to kill Medflies, more gauged it to be ineffective than found it useful.

Feelings on the question, however, were mixed in Orange County, where the infestation spread months after the eradication effort in Los Angeles County already was in full swing.

The lack of any strong objection to the cost of the spraying was seen across political, racial and geographic lines. So too, for the most part, was the finding that more people are concerned about the dangers of spraying than the cost of battling an extended Medfly infestation.

Overall, 46% said the danger to people was more important, compared to 16% who felt the potential cost to agriculture should be of primary importance. That conclusion was almost identical in Los Angeles County and city and in Orange County, from Anglos and Latinos and Democrats and independents. Blacks were more strongly concerned with dangers--59% said the health peril was more important than the prospect of agricultural damage. Republicans appeared more concerned than Democrats with the impact on farming, with 21% saying agriculture should take precedence and 34% saying the health risk should.

One in five of those whose neighborhoods have been sprayed believe they and their families have suffered from specific malathion-related problems, or have increased their chances of problems. Nine percent blamed it for bouts of coughing, while 6% complained of headaches. The percentage of specific complaints was highest among blacks--26% of whom blamed coughing spells on malathion--and in Los Angeles County territory.

State officials have said that previous eradication efforts have shown that people living in the spray zones are prone to anxiety-caused illnesses. During the 1980-81 infestation in Northern California, officials who monitored health-related telephone calls said some callers reported symptoms even before the spraying. The reports of illness dropped off after the spraying, officials said.

In addition, 9% of poll respondents felt that their pets and wild animals were at risk, and 18% said automobiles in their neighborhoods had been damaged by the aerial spraying.

Worry over malathion was far more pressing than actual complaints. More than half of those questioned said they worry at least “a fair amount” about the health implications of malathion, and almost one in four said they worry “a lot.”

Views on Malathion Spraying Have you been sprayed? Yes: 38% No: 55 Don’t know: 7 Were people given enough warning? Yes: 48% No: 43 Don’t know: 9 Which is more important? Danger to people: 46% Added costs to agriculture: 16 Equally important: 29 Don’t know: 9 How much do you worry about aerial spraying of Malathion? A lot: 23% A fair amount: 30 Not much: 21 Hardly at all: 25 Don’t know: 1 Source: Los Angeles Times Poll