The Pesticide of Last Resort
In the summer showdown between lawn-care lobbyists and parents against toxic sprays, whose grass is greener? Connecticut's finding out.
Connecticut kids are luckier than most. Last fall, the state became the first to ban the use of pesticides (which includes herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides) on the grounds of elementary and middle schools—a decision that has put it at the forefront of a nationwide movement, and also in the crosshairs of the multibillion dollar lawn-care industry. For the rest of the country, it sends a clear message. "It says that aesthetic uses of chemicals are unacceptable especially when children are exposed," says Jay Feldman, executive director of Washington-based Beyond Pesticides.
One common herbicide in popular "weed and feed" lawn-care products, 2,4-D, constituted about 50 percent of Agent Orange, and has been linked to birth defects, neurological problems, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and liver and kidney damage. In Canada, as many as 160 municipalities have banned the use of pesticides with 2,4-D.
More than 78 million households in the US use home and garden pesticides, feeding pesticide sales that top $9.3 billion a year. Part of the problem is the lawn-care industry's successful shaping of public perception, says Ted Steinberg, the author of American Green: The Obsessive Quest for the Perfect Lawn. "The PR machine coming out of Scotts is spending millions to convince the public that they need toxic chemicals to manage a home lawn," he says. The lawn-industry lobby has also succeeded in prohibiting a municipality from having pesticide regulations that are stronger than the state's.
To win the ban in Connecticut, a coalition of health care professionals and policy experts named Environment and Human Health, Inc. prepared several reports on lawn pesticides, one of which anti-pesticide groups nicknamed "the bible." Among other things, the group found pesticides in 6 out of 53 local wells. They also discovered there were few laws covering the use of pesticides in schools. But, because of the preemption laws, there was little the towns could do. "Anyone could spray with no training," says Nancy Alderman, founder and president of EHHI.
Lawn-care lobbyists have been fighting back. Richard Tice, executive director of both the Connecticut Grounds Keepers Association and the Environmental Industry Council of Connecticut (formerly named the Professional Pesticide Users of Connecticut), calls the bill "asinine." A better approach, he says, is integrated pest management, or IPM, a strategy that recommends pesticide use as a last resort. Tice, for now, is not too worried about his industry's future. "The normal person just doesn't care," he says, "Look at the amount of yellow signs you see out there. If the concern was there amongst the general public, then no one would apply pesticides."
Page 1 of 1 
CT. is to be applauded. Wish all states would wake up to this issue.....these cretins prefer to stay in their comfort zone of pushing death to the earth and water, instead of raising the bar and exploring earth friendly products.
NEEM........the natural pesticide that come from a tree in India, is the way to go!!!!
To Richard Tice: so now you want IPM after stonewalling any and all efforts at control. Good job Connectictut and Environment and Human Health, Inc.
thank you to Connecticut! I am always having to tell my kids to stay off the grass along the road when we go for walks because of those little yellow signs> I don't care much about that but i do worry about our well water getting contaminated with that garbage.
My neighbor used fertilizers, pertisides and herbisides for years. Both my cats died of cancer. Her dog died of some rare lung ailment. Despite my pleas, she kept applying the junk to her grass. Now all her grass has died and she has crabgrass, weeds and dead patches. Mother Nature has spoken.
Also: If we can't ban gasoline powered lawn appliances, we should at least impose noise and air pollution rules upon their use. The real answer though is to change the "green grass" mentality and switch to landscaping and ground-cover alternatives (like clover) that are lower maintenance.
What's wrong with Americans? Why is it the Canadians and Europeans always put the health of their citizens first and economics second. You must read the Vanity Fair article on the greed and toxic history of Monsanto in their May issue. It symptomatic of what needs to change in the US.
Out here in the Australian "Bush" The Power Utiliy has the obligation to keep under the traversing power lines on my property, and all others, tree and weed free. By law when they contact me to gain access I tell them. "NO Pesticides"
I am an organic grower. They HAVE to comply. Yeah! it means they have to use machetes and scrub cutters. All pesticide applicators have to be licensed and trained. Why is America so far behind?
The reason that it appears Canadians and Europeans put the healthcare of their citzens ahead of economics is that CA & EU have socialized healthcare. The economics of providing healthcare prohibits self-destructive beahvior.
Oh, come on! This is America we're talking about. Of COURSE profit comes before health or welfare! If it's cool for 4k+ Americans and perhaps .6m Iraqis to die for the arms manufacturers to rake in their billions, what's the schtick about a few kids???
Lawn care is big business in Florida. The runoff from pesticide-treated lawns ends up in our bayous, creeks and bays. Even some of those who live on the beach feel the need for a "green" lawn. "Round-up" is used to kill weeds in sidewalks. Diazinon to kill ants, etc. etc. All of this, if not airborne, ends up in our water supply. There are so many alternatives: pyrethrum (plant-based), eco-friendly insects (ladybug, preying mantis), plants that protect other plants by proximity (marigolds & tomatoes), xeriscaping. We've got to stop polluting our water and killing marine life.
ALL poisons get into the ground water as well as into streams. All poisons eventually wind up in the ocean if they don't biodegrade into components that also biodegrade. Sustainability demands that the use of poisons of all types be severely limited. Lawn maintenance should not be an exception. Good for CT!
Well, in my 'hood it's the breeders that have the pesticides applied to their lawns. And drive the SUVs. And yell at me about recycling my Sunday paper "for their kids' futures."
Of course I applaud CT for trying to protect its school children. I would like city parks to be chemical-free also.
Another concern, as I walk my dog, is with the public right-of-way next to the road that home-owners and lawn-care people continue to treat with chemicals. Of course I avoid yards with horrible smells eminating from them or visible signs of recent homeowner treatment. During certain times of the year my walks become a challenge as I cross back-and-forth across the road to avoid these toxic yards.
Those tiny signs only help if they aren't posted around the corner. And homeowner applied chemicals are only described as safe when Applied Properly.
Seeing a Springtime bloom of yellow dandelions and a Suppertime bloom of white clover mixed in with the grass looks even more beautiful when you think about the bees, birds, bugs, pets, and expecially children.
People don't care because they are unaware of the effects on humans, of chemical warfare against plants and insects. They trust TV and its mind numbing barrage of commercials, telling us how to behave and what to think. Reminds me of the complacency of smoking, up to the revelations of that industry's coverup.
To illustrate how much power the lawn care industry has, it is the law in most towns that you must have a lawn in most, or part, of the front yard. Voters can change local laws to allow alternate landscaping schemes.
THE BAR is the most poisonous influence on US government and business............ most corporate crime is enabled by lawyers like michael hamaway and judges like JAY SPECHLER and THOMAS LYNCH and arbitrator rhonda hollander........ BARRY SELTZER, et al.
