The banning of pesticides on ornamentals plants started in Canada but is gradually spreading to the south. Liberal Takoma Park, MD recently became the first place in the U.S. to implement such a ban on public and private property, as reported here. And now the proponents of that ban are taking it county-wide in what’s being called “the most polarizing issue the county council has faced in many years.” (Source.) People apparently like their lawns just the way they are – free of “weeds” like clover, as an angry acquaintance told me just last night.
The opposition is coming from the usual suspects – lawn-care businesses, the pesticide industry, and homeowner associations, with one HOA president testifying that “We don’t want any more bad-looking properties in the neighborhood.”
But I’m surprised by the opposition from another quarter – soccer moms and dads concerned that playing field grass will be less safe if it isn’t thickened with the help of conventional chemicals. Injuries from falls are more obvious than the effects of repeated exposure to toxic chemicals.
So what IS the science?
The source most cited by proponents of the ban is a 2012 report from the American Academy of Pediatrics that says data “demonstrates associations” between early life pesticide exposure and cancer, decreased cognitive skills and other disorders. But the pediatricians didn’t go as far as favoring a broad ban, choosing instead to blandly recommend reducing children’s exposure to pesticides. Huh?
A spokesperson for the National Cancer Institute official weighed in, saying that lawmakers will have to decide based on “community values” alone because “scientific evidence of the danger such chemicals may pose to humans remains inconclusive.” (Source.)
That same source points out that the World Health Organization study of pesticides’ carcinogenic properties is currently being updated. And the NIH’s Toxicology Program has listed 21 pesticides as “probable human carcinogens” and 141 as “possible, suggestive or likely.”
So, where are we? I’m putting this question to the Garden Professors Facebook Group and will let you know what they have to say on the issue.
Nanny State Alert!
Discussion of public health and safety regulations seem to always include the dreaded term “nanny state,” and that’s happening here, too. I remember seatbelt laws being attacked as nanny-like, but time passes and we all move on. Will that happen with pesticides?
This goes to the heart of what is called the “precautionary principle”.Tthis concept stipulates that a municipality would have the right to ban any garden product that is deemed unsafe. In practice now in many US cities, it will be the cornerstone for what promises to be a long fight those who are sick and tired of the way that the chemical companies and big box stores are selling these products – and those who would preserve their long running unethical way of doing business.
In the San Francisco Bay Area we are very far away from stopping the use of pesticides in our public lands, primarily because of the strength of the native plant movement. With the exception of golf courses, most of the herbicide used in our public parks is used to eradicate so-called “invasive” non-native plants. And some of the most toxic herbicides (e.g., Garlon) are used exclusively on benign plants such as oxalis, which blooms briefly in the spring, provides nectar to bees, then fades away quickly for the rest of the year. Here is a description of herbicide use by the so-called Natural Areas Program in San Francisco: http://sfforest.net/2015/04/01/world-health-organization-roundup-probably-carcinogenic/
Ironically, San Francisco adopted the precautionary principle for its policies regulating purchasing, yet the Department of the Environment which asked the city to adopt it as law is also the city department that defends the use of toxic herbicides for the sole purpose of eradicating non-native plants. Go figure!
Have you heard of/read the book “Where Do Camels Belong?” by Ken Thompson? He explores the complicated/impossible task of definitively defining species and ecosystem boundaries so as to declare what’s native and not, and how a native is good non-native is bad approach is unproductive. He spends a while talking about how the community of native species enthusiasts sprays a tremendous amount of herbicide for very questionable results. Possibly even being counter-productive as inaccurate spraying kills native plants as well which creates disturbance in an ecosystem, exactly the situation most “invasive” plants thrive in. I mention this because I’ve worked on some land and habitat restoration projects and sprayed my fair share! But now I share your skepticism.
Thanks, Chris. Yes, I have read “Where do camels belong?” It is a full frontal assault on nativism compared to predecessors such as Emma Marris in “Rambunctious Garden.” The conventional wisdom that native plants are somehow superior to introduced plants is fading because climate change is quickly rendering it irrelevant. In the end it will be a question of what grows where in current conditions. It is also a question of how much damage is being done to the environment in the pursuit of a theoretically ideal landscape.
Converts to the value of “novel ecosystems” are often abandoning their commitment to historical landscapes based on their experience. There is no substitute for experience as a teacher.
With no empirical evidence to support their claims because no one want to do the gruesome math, many believe that the high number of deaths due to cancer among golf club members in North America may be traced to continuous exposure to weed killer.
We’ve had a full ban here in Ontario since 2009, and despite dire warnings the sky hasn’t fallen. Health threats aside, it’s such a pleasure not to have the chemical smell wafting over the neighbourhood when the tanker trucks make their rounds.
Safe Grow Montgomery, which advocated for Bill 52-14, sees Ontario as the gold standard. Our County Parks Dept. opposes the bill because they say they can’t maintain parks and playing fields without conventional pesticides. The head of Parks claims, “I spoke to experts in Ontario and it’s a mess there– weeds have taken over.” I don’t believe this at all, but do you have some photos of parks that show how beautiful they look, and without pesticides to boot?
Thanks!–Julie Taddeo, SGM
http://safegrowmontgomery.com/
Pesticides as well as fertilizers are not required. When you answer the question “Why do weeds grow?”, You’ll understand that they are Mother Nature’s indicators of an unbalance soil food web. That this unbalance is caused by the use of fertilizers and pesticides. That they also promote insect and disease issues. Their negative impact is not only on our soil and plant, but our global water and air quality.
As in the soil, so in your stomach.
We know of a large number of drug interactions from our many medical studies, yet studies of various industrial chemicals in use in the environment usually only look at them in isolation. Even when studies are done properly (companies have been known to, for instance, quietly bury the results of studies they have paid for if they don’t like the results) they may miss dangerous interactions.
I understand that examining all these interactions would be a horrendous task, but the precautionary principle “solves” these issues by minimizing the number and amount of unnatural chemicals interacting.
Yes – nanny state much.
They seemed to have extended these laws past the point that they would have been necessary. What I mean is that these laws should have been intended to curb ‘big agras’ use of poisoning our food with their poisons which is scientifically proven to destroy our health but for some reason the laws seem to have been extended to peoples pot plants and lawns??
You write:
…data “demonstrates associations” between early life pesticide exposure and cancer, decreased cognitive skills and other disorders. …
In 1988, I spent a lot of time at the home of some friends, and they had regular pesticide and herbicide service. I wondered why they would do that when their daughters would be exposed to it when they played. The pesticides were for minor household pests, including spiders–which bothered me. I’m willing to bet those regular chemical sprays are part of why anything in the back yard never thrived.
I don’t want to breathe the stuff, or walk barefoot through it. My belle-mère has an asthma attack if the mow, blow & go guys our landlord hires use the petrochemical spray. I’m having problems finding St Gabriel BurnOut for the collection of weeds in front, and the savannah in the back. Works, and smells a heck of a lot better.