We are once again entering the season when a government agency—most likely the Ministry of Forests—will be granted a permit to continue its annual aerial spraying of the bacterial-chemical pesticide Foray 48B over British Columbia communities and the surrounding environment.
I am writing this as someone who has spent years researching Spongy moths (formerly called Gypsy moths) and the government’s ongoing efforts to “eradicate” them. I was also part of a group of concerned citizens who successfully stopped the aerial spraying on Salt Spring Island in 1993. This letter is for those of you who are anticipating, with concern, yet another round of aerial pesticide spraying in your community—who feel it is your right and responsibility to respond.
The theory behind the spraying is simple: coat entire landscapes—people, animals, insects, plants, and microbial life included—with a pesticide to eliminate one single species. But this is dangerously naive thinking. There has been no rigorous, long-term study on how this type of widespread pesticide application affects the environment as a whole. It fails to consider the complexity of ecosystems, the long-term impact on non-target species, and what happens when you repeat this year after year.
And has the Spongy moth ever actually been eradicated? No. Despite decades of spraying, the moth still returns—because it is transported into the area by vehicles, ships, equipment, and wood products. The government’s so-called “eradication” claims don’t hold up when you look at the facts. B.C. has declared infestations based on finding as few as one or two moths. In Vancouver, aerial spraying was approved under an “emergency” designation based on the discovery of four moths. This emergency label meant there were no avenues for public appeal. The argument that B.C. has avoided an “invasion” because of continuous spraying is simply not factual.
These moths have been seen here since the early 1900s. They don’t even thrive in B.C.’s forests—our trees are mostly conifers, and Spongy moth caterpillars prefer deciduous trees. Meanwhile, the eastern forests of Canada, where Spongy moths actually do establish themselves, have continued to stand despite their “voracious appetites.” Research has shown that in areas where spraying was stopped, trees naturally defended themselves, and moth populations followed a natural cycle that forests could withstand.
So if we can’t actually eradicate them, and they aren’t an immediate threat to our forests, why do we keep spraying? And why are we given so much misleading, pseudo-scientific “information” to convince us that this is necessary?
The truth is, there are strong lobbying interests behind this. Industrial forestry companies and the bio-chemical manufacturers who produce these pesticides have powerful voices in government. Then there are international trade concerns—Canada has to be able to prove to its trading partners (especially the U.S.) that it is actively controlling the spread of these moths. The problem is, we could do that in other ways. If we were made aware of any Spongy moth presence early, we could mitigate the issue with smaller, targeted approaches, document those efforts properly, and still meet trade requirements. There are smarter alternatives, but the government seems unwilling to break out of this pattern.
Then there’s the issue of safety. We are constantly assured that Foray 48B is “safe” because it contains Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki (BTK), a bacteria that targets caterpillars in the Lepidoptera family. We are told that BTK is “naturally occurring” in soil and that there is nothing to worry about. But is this true?
Studies in the U.S. and Japan have found that BTK is actually rare in natural soils. One survey of untreated land found it in less than one percent of soil samples. The bacteria is closely related to Bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and Bacillus cereus (which can cause food poisoning). These bacteria have the ability to produce toxic compounds under certain conditions. More importantly, there have been no long-term studies on what BTK does when introduced into ecosystems year after year.
And let’s not forget—BTK is only one of the ingredients in Foray 48B. The other 97 percent of the formula is undisclosed due to “proprietary” protections. We don’t know what’s in it. We don’t know how those ingredients interact. We don’t know what happens when people, animals, and water sources are repeatedly exposed.
What we do know is that Foray 48B has been found to persist in freshwater for up to 70 days. It can drift in the air for kilometres beyond the spray site. And people have reported health concerns following exposure.
In one spray campaign, a government hotline was set up to take public concerns. Of the 26,000 calls received, 19,893 were related to health issues. Nearly all of these reports were dismissed. Yet independent studies documented real cases of negative health effects, including respiratory issues and allergic reactions.
If you are concerned about this, there are ways to take action. Around Christmas, a public notice will appear in your local newspaper regarding an Application for a Pesticide Use Permit. This is not the final permit—it is the application for approval. The public can respond and submit concerns. The person evaluating the permit considers whether the treatment will be effective, whether the adverse effects will be unreasonable, and whether the pesticide will be applied safely.
When responding, it is best to focus on a specific area of concern. This could be waterways, soil health, loss of organic status, the impact on ecosystems, or public confidence in food safety. If you don’t know much about the science, you can still express your personal concerns—whether it’s the fear of pesticide exposure, the loss of enjoyment of your property, or distrust in the government’s approach. These are all valid considerations.
If the permit is approved, there is still a brief window for appeal through the Environmental Appeal Board. In Salt Spring’s case, we didn’t have time to respond before the permit was granted, but when the final approval was published, we filed 24 appeals in two days. These appeals came from local organizations, government bodies, and individuals—including scientists. This created enough pressure that we were able to negotiate an alternative plan that eliminated aerial spraying altogether. Instead, we worked with Agriculture Canada to implement manual control methods, with community volunteers doing the work themselves.
It was a practical, hands-on solution that replaced government overreach with real community action. It was done again successfully in 2006.
If you’re facing spraying in your area, know this—you have options. You have the right to question these decisions and the responsibility to protect your community. Even if you are unsuccessful at first, keep building support and pushing for change. There are a lot of issues out there competing for our attention, but this is one where community action can actually make a difference.
And when you can be part of the solution instead of just protesting the problem—that is something worth fighting for.
An Island Grandmother
