Dogs Absorb Lawn Chemicals

You might think this is a no brainer, or you might have never even thought about it, but a new study out of Perdue University (and reported on by the Discovery Channel) shows a correlation between lawn pesticides and a higher risk of bladder cancer in dogs. The study also suggests that other pets and children are also at risk of ingesting these chemicals and increasing their risk of cancer as a result, even if it isn't your lawn that's being sprayed, but your neighbor's.

The Discovery article talks a lot about the risks, the science, and industry standards for pesticide application, but it doesn't talk about organic alternatives to spraying directly in the article. Scroll through the captions for the images in the slideshow at the top of the article for some helpful tips for growing a sustainable lawn, but keep in mind that one of the suggestions, corn gluten, is not recommended by the NOFA Standards for Organic Land Care. You can also see a more comprehensive set of tips and guidelines for growing an organic lawn or garden by viewing the pdf of our Introduction to Organic Lawns and Yards booklet here. (You can also purchase hard copies of the booklet here.)

The best way to prevent chemical absorption for lawn pesticides is to stop spraying your lawn with them, and talking to your neighbors about it if they spray their lawns. You can still have a green and beautiful looking lawn without the use of harmful cancer-causing chemicals, and you and your lawn will be healthier in the long run if you do transition to organic.  Need some help getting started?  View a list of our Accredited Organic Land Care Professionals, who are in business to help you care for your property organically, on our searchable database here.

Have a great day!
-Melissa

Call Your Legislator: Current Bills to Expand Restrictions on CT Pesticide Applications

In the world of conventional lawn and land care in Connecticut, the coming of spring heralds the onset of chemical pesticide applications to residential lawns, parks, municipal grounds, and some schools. Municipalities and towns currently have difficulty obtaining the authority to regulate pesticide applications on their public and private grounds, and while CT has a pesticide ban in place right now for K-8 public schools, grade 9-12 schools are not included in the legislation.

Soon, however, all that may change.  This year, several bills were introduced at the capitol that, if passed, would aid in the reduction or elimination of synthetic pesticides on secondary school grounds, municipal parks and recreation areas, and residential areas by town.  Here's the background about each bill:

Raised Bill 914: An Act Concerning the Application of Pesticides at Municipal Parks
If passed, this bill will apply the same restrictions concerning the application of pesticides at day care centers to the application of pesticides at municipal parks. These restrictions will help protect the people who enjoy the municipal parks from needless chemical exposure, and will also prevent the poisoning and resulting population decline of the insect population that many species of birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals rely on as a food source.  Check out the Connecticut Audubon Society's testimony in support of this bill here.

Raised Bill 981: An Act Concerning Pesticides on School Grounds
If passed, this bill will expand the ban on the use of lawn care pesticides in schools to include schools with students in grades nine to twelve, inclusive.  This extends the current K-8 ban to include all levels of elementary and secondary education, providing Connecticut's children with an uninterrupted pesticide-free education. CT NOFA, which the NOFA Organic Land Care Program is a part of, is a member of the Connecticut Safe Grounds Coalition that supports the K-8 ban.  For the Coalition, and for any parent of education employee, this is big news.

Proposed Bill 5411: An Act Authorizing Certain Municipal Regulations of the Application of Pesticides on Residential Properties
If passed, this bill will enable municipalities to enact pesticide application regulations that are more stringent than the regulations adopted by the state in order to protect aquifers and environmentally sensitive areas from contamination and to protect children and pets from the toxic effects of pesticides. This bill is similar to the following bill (6440) in that it allows municipalities more authority to pass regulations independently of the state.

Raised Bill 6440: An Act Concerning Municipalities and the Application of Lawn Care Pesticides
If passed, this bill will allow municipalities to apply to the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection for the authority to regulate the spraying of lawn care pesticides in such municipality. Currently, even if a town or municipality wanted to adopt pesticide regulations that were more stringent than those enforced by the state, it would be illegal to do so because the state law preempts the local law.  This bill will empower communities to take action against toxic chemicals on their landscapes, even if the state has yet to enact similar measures.

All of these bills are extremely important when thinking about a holistic approach to human health, wildlife conservation, and environmental protection.  If we are to effectively avoid chemical pesticide exposure, both for ourselves and for other species, we ultimately need to regulate the application of such chemicals in all areas and in all industries.  Individual regulations are incredibly important, both in mitigating chemical exposure and in showing us the path we need to head in, but each individual regulation is only part of a much larger, more encompassing, and vital whole.

Please call your legislator today in support of one or more of these bills.  If you're not sure who your legislators are, you can use this online tool to find out. Working together, we can take control of our health and the health of the world around us.

Have a great weekend,
Melissa

Pesticide Regulation in the News: New Legislation Could Harm Our Waterways

One of the main principles of organic land care is to reduce the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. There are many reasons for this principle, one being to reduce the pollution of our waterways.

As of recently,  U.S. Senators Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Mike Johanns (R-NE) re-introduced legislation that would reduce the review requirements for pesticides that are directly applied to water. The legislation would ensure that Clean Water Act (CWA) permits are not required for the application of pesticides. This is the second attempt for this type of legislation to be passed. The previous Senate version of the bill, Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011, never reached the Senate floor due to holds put on the act by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Benjamin Cardin (D-MD).

This article from BeyondPesticides.org gives a great overview the legislation and why sustaining CWA permits is so important.


       "In 2009, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the case of theNational Cotton Council et al. v. EPAthat pesticides discharged into water are pollutants and required to be permitted under the CWA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). This ruling overturned Bush administration policy that exempted pesticides from regulation under the CWA and applied the less protective standards of theFederal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). CWA uses a health-based standard known as maximum contamination levels (MCLs) to protect waterways and requires permits when chemicals are directly deposited into rivers, lakes and streams, whereas FIFRA uses a highly generalized risk assessment that does not consider the availability of safer alternatives.

The proponents of this legislation claim that requiring a CWA permit creates a double layer of red tape that is costly to the agriculture industry and consumers. However, FIFRA and CWA are complementary laws and the CWA permit process only affects a small number of pesticide applications. The two statutes have fundamentally different standards and methods in determining whether a pesticide will have unreasonable adverse effects on the environment and/or human health. The CWA statute is more stringent than FIFRA. CWA has a “zero discharge” standard, meaning any amount of discharge, no matter how small, without a permit, constitutes a violation of the CWA. Risk assessment, on the other hand, used under FIFRA, is weaker than a “zero” standard. Risk/benefit allows a certain amount of pollution (i.e. risk) in exchange for controversial calculations of benefit and use a threshold of harm that can vary upon EPA discretion. Since the CWA statute is more stringent in its oversight of U.S. waterways, and thus provides increased safeguards for human health and the environment, FIFRA should not be allowed to override the CWA.

Proponents of this legislation also claim that this permit process would restrict public health officials from using pesticides to control mosquitoes and the spread of West Nile virus (WNv). However, as evidenced through scientific studies and experiences from communities around the country, spraying pesticides is not an effective or efficient way to prevent death or illness associated with insect-borne WNv. Moreover, spraying for WNv can be harmful to non-target species, adversely affect wildlife, and contaminate drinking water sources."

Best,
Katie

Pesticide Regulations in the News

This week the American Academy of Pediatricians published a report titled "Pesticide Exposure in Children". Which, unsurprisingly for pesticide-reduction advocates, found that pesticide exposure both from fields and lawns and from foods, is unhealthy for children.  Eileen Fitzgerald with the News Times wrote an article on Wednesday November, 28 connecting these findings to the importance of maintaining Connecticut's ban on pesticides in K-8 schools.  The article, titled "Urge state to keep school pesticide ban" outlines the findings of the AAP report and interviews one of Connecticut's forefront pesticide safety advocates, Nancy Alderman president of the organization  Environmental and Human Health, Inc.  based in New Haven.  The article also brings attention to an alarming letter sent to Connecticut's policy lawmakers from the Connecticut School Grounds Management Coalition urging them to weaken the pesticide ban.  

*Side note: One of the greatest proponents of pesticide regulation roll-back, and who is partically responsible for this letter, is a group named the Connecticut Environmental Council, which recently won a place on Toxics Action Committee's list of "The Dirty Dozen".  Read the "Dirty Dozen Report" and this post in the Courant Blog for more information!

Back to the AAP Report. It finds that: "Children encounter pesticides daily and have unique susceptibilities to their potential toxicity. Acute poisoning risks are clear, and understanding of chronic health implications from both acute and chronic exposure are emerging. Epidemiologic evidence demonstrates associations between early life exposure to pesticides and pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function, and behavioral problems . . . Recognizing and reducing problematic exposures will require attention to current inadequacies in medical training, public health tracking, and regulatory action on pesticides."
The report warns about exposure to pesticides from the landscape, but also states that "diet may be the most influential source [of pesticides], as illustrated by an intervention study that placed children on an organic diet (produced without pesticide) and observed drastic and immediate decrease in urinary excretion or pesticide metabolites." 

This report is also illuminating, because it also explains how to read a pesticide label to prevent dangerous exposure for adults and children.  The very first "signal word" that identifies toxicity is a US Environmental Protection Agency registration number.  There has been a lot of confusion (mostly because of misinformation distributed by the pesticide industry) that EPA registration means a product is safe for the environment and for people, when really, the complete opposite is true.  

The last two lines of the Fitzgerald's article seem to make the choice clear: "With this new powerful report from the American Academy of Pediatrics, it seems that parents would want to make sure the law stays in place as it is.  Perfect lawns and fields would be a poor substitute for healthy children."
Read Eileen FitzGerald: Urge state to keep school pesticide ban Read the AAP Report: Policy Statement: Pesticide Exposure in Children

If you are worried about these findings, and the ban, write to your state congressman and senator today reinforcing your support for Connecticut's pesticide ban.  If you would like to encourage more regulations in your town's parks and public lands, check out our website's page for towns: http://www.organiclandcare.net/organic-towns 

Best,
Kristiane