volume 19 , number 1 spring 1999 pesticides and you · 2012. 4. 30. · their present pest control...

Pesticides and YouNews from Beyond Pesticides / National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP)

Volume 19 , Number 1 Spring 1999

The Right Way to Vegetation Management • ChemicalsFound to Affect Male Reproductive System in New Way •

A Review of The Poisoning of Public Thoroughfares:How Herbicides Blight California’s Roads

—Jay Feldman is ExecutiveDirector of NCAMP

Letter from Washington

The Victories Keep Coming in Towns Across the Country

This issue of Pesticides and You highlights the ongo-ing victories that we are seeing at the local level onschools and alternatives to pesticides. In March, the

Los Angeles Safe Schools Coalition achieved victory whenthe Los Angeles Unified School District Board approved astringent pest management policy curbing the use of pesti-cides in LA Schools. Two of the largest school districts inPennsylvania within the last year adopted similar policies.There is a movement that is based on coalitions of parents,teachers, unions, physicians and environmentalists that un-derstand the hazards of pesticides and the viability of alter-natives. These are groups that are taking back the definitionof Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and requiring the useof preventive pest management methods and only chemicaluse as a last resort.

This community-based approach to change is central in apolitical environment where state and federal policy makersare often proceeding in a cozy relationship with the pesti-cide industry. Take, for example, the meeting that EPA spon-sored on March 17-19 in Crystal City, VA outside Washing-ton, DC. Called the National IPM in Schools Workshop, itbrought together IPM officials from nearly two dozen statesto talk strategy and program. Organized by Indiana Univer-sity, under a grant from EPA, the organizers actively keptenvironmentalists, parents and public interest folks fromparticipating in the meeting. When I called to request a seatat the table, I was told that I could attend as an observer, aslong as I didn’t say anything. I accepted that, given that itwas described as a meeting of state officials until I showedup and found a representative from the National Pest Con-trol Association (NPCA) at the table and a former employeeof NPCA, now a consultant, sitting next to him. And so, wecan chalk that up to another EPA meeting on pesticide-in-tensive IPM, ignoring what people in Los Angeles and acrossthe country want and can achieve —pesticide free schools.

That’s when I returned to the office and fired off a letter toEPA Administrator Carol Browner, asking her to interveneand ensure fair and full representation at the EPA-supportedmeeting. While I have not gotten a response to my letter ofoutrage, Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP board member RuthBerlin, coordinator of the Maryland Pesticide Network, did.The Director of the Office of Pesticide Program, MarshaMulkey, wrote the response. It is misleading, to put it nicely.For starters, it says that NCAMP was invited to attend theworkshop, but does not say that we were told not to openour mouths. It cites the attendance of the Maryland Depart-ment of Agriculture, which is now required to implement anew school IPM and right-to-know policy under a new statelaw, failing to acknowledge that this Department only sup-ported the legislation when the Governor required that it doso. EPA said, “We share your commitment to reducingchildren’s exposure to pesticides at school through the IPMapproach to pest management. . .to help achieve our risk

reduction goals.” Also carefully chosen words in an EPA erawhere officials do not speak of pesticide “use reduction,” butrefer generally to “risk reduction.”

I am not the only one feeling the frustration of an Envi-ronmental Protection Agency that sees industry as its con-stituency. In late April, seven public interest groups resignedfrom the EPA federal advisory committee on implementa-tion of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) becausethe agency was unwilling “to make hard choices” to restrictpesticides that have adverse effects on children. The advi-sory panel, composed of pesticide industry, farm, health andenvironmental representatives had been created last year atthe urging of Vice President Gore, who was under pressurefrom the chemical-intensive farming community to slow theregulatory process down. Gore said he was concerned about“transparency” of the process and “sound science.”

The Demasculinizing Effects of PesticidesTurning to science, once again Theo Colburn, Ph.D. hashelped to get the word out on the endocrine disrupting ef-fects of pesticides. This time as guest editor of Toxicology andIndustrial Health, she put together a series of articles show-ing that certain pesticides demasculinize and can affect spermcounts and the structure of the prostate. The articles indi-cate that antiandrogenic effects of chemicals can work in twoways, by either reducing the amount of testosterone pro-duced, or by a chemical replacing testosterone in the cell’sreceptor. This is clearly different from the feminizing effectsof estrogenic chemicals that also have adverse effects on maledevelopment.

A Review of Rights-of-WayIn our continuing review of state laws, this issue contains areview of pesticide policy regarding rights-of-way. This is nosmall issue. The use of herbicides spans millions of miles ofroads, utility lines, railroad corridors and more. So, we re-port on where states are at regarding integrated pest man-agement and right-to-know. Our goal here, as in previousreports, is to keep states accountable to the laws that areprotective and develop new policies where there are none.

Let us know what is hap-pening in your town andstate. We always look for-ward to working with you.

Vol. 19, No. 1, 1999 Pesticides and You Page 1Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

Pesticides and You ©1999 (ISSN 0896-7253), published 4 times a year byBeyond Pesticides/National CoalitionAgainst the Misuse of Pesticides, is avoice for pesticide safety and alternatives.Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP is a non-profit, tax-exempt membership organiza-tion; donations are tax-deductible.

National Headquarters:701 E Street, SE,Washington DC 20003ph: 202-543-5450 fx: 202-543-4791email: [email protected]: http://www.ncamp.org

Articles in this newsletter may bereproduced without Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’s permission unless otherwisenoted. Please credit Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP for reproduced material.

BEYOND PESTICIDES/NCAMP STAFFJay Feldman, Executive DirectorBeth Fiteni, Program CoordinatorKagan Owens, Information CoordinatorHilary Melcarek, Information AssistantTerry Shistar, Ph.D., ScienceConsultant & Webmaster

PESTICIDES AND YOUJay Feldman, Publisher, EditorBeth Fiteni, Kagan Owens, HilaryMelcarek, ContributorsFree Hand Press, Typesetting

BEYOND PESTICIDES/NCAMPBOARD OF DIRECTORSRuth Berlin, LCSW-C, Maryland

Pesticide Network, Annapolis, MDLaura Caballero, Lideres Campesinas

en California, Greenfield, CANancy and Jim Chuda, Children’s

Health Environment Coalition,Malibu, CA

Merrill Clark, Roseland Farms,Cassopolis, MI

Shelley Davis, J.D., FarmworkerJustice Fund, Washington, DC

Lorna Donaldson-McMahon, SilvertopFarm, Tiptonville, TN

Jay Feldman, Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP, Washington, DC

Tessa Hill, Kids for Saving EarthWorldwide, Plymouth, MN

Eric Kindberg, Organic FarmersMarketing Association, Fairfield, IA

Terry Shistar, Ph.D., Kansas Chapter,Sierra Club, Lawrence, KS

Gregg Small, Pesticide Watch,San Francisco, CA

Allen Spalt, Agricultural ResourcesCenter, Carrboro, NC

John Wargo, Ph.D., Yale University,New Haven, CT

Daniel Wartenberg, Ph.D., R.W.Johnson Medical School,Piscataway, NJ

Affiliations shown for informationalpurposes only

page 10

2 MailCan Colleges Accommodate Chemically Sen-sitive Students? • Worker Uses Hazardous Pes-ticide Without Training • Tomato Farmer FedUp with Drift

4 Washington, D.C.EPA Funded Workshop on School IPM Ex-cludes Environmental Groups • USDA Scien-tists Find Peach Oil Effective Against Pests,May Replace Methyl Bromide • EPA’s Endo-crine Disruptor Screening Program Update •Industry Holds FQPA Conference, Pest Man-agement Centers Proposed by Rominger

6 Around the CountryMove Over Soybeans • Child Sickened by Pes-ticide Exposure at School • Pesticide Resis-tant Clothing • Studies Continue to Find Pes-ticide Contamination Linked to Frog Malfor-mations • Schools in Pittsburgh and Philadel-phia Adopt Least Toxic Pest Control Policies• Los Angeles Follows San Francisco’s LeadIn Adopting Progressive School IPM Program• 2,4-D Found in Canadian Rainwater • FAOReport Shows Growing Organic Business

9 The Right Way toVegetation ManagementA review of selected pest management poli-cies and programs on rights-of-way.by Kagan Owens and Jay Feldman

18 Chemicals Found to Affect MaleReproductive System in New Wayby Hilary Melcarek

20 A Review of The Poisoningof Public Thoroughfares: HowHerbicides Blight California’s Roadsby Hilary Melcarek

23 ResourcesThe Organic Cotton Briefing Kit and OrganicCotton Directory 1998-1999 • Farms of To-morrow Revisited; Community SupportedFarms — Farm Supported Communities • PestControl Practices in Connecticut PublicSchools • Flyers Beware: Pesticide Use on In-ternational and U.S. Domestic Aircraft andFlights • The Organic Revolution

Contents

page 18

page 20

Printed with soy-based inks onEcoprint Offset, and cover on

Quest™, both 100% post-consumerwaste and processed chlorine free.

Phot

o cr

edit:

Cal

iforn

ians

for A

ltern

ativ

e to

Tox

ics

Mail

Page 2 Pesticides and You Vol. 19, No. 1, 1999Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

Can CollegesAccommodateChemically SensitiveStudents?

Dear Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP,

Thanks for the complimentary copy ofyour news magazine, Pesticides and You.Reading it gave me an idea. I have beencontacting all North Carolina collegesand universities, via an informal e-mailsurvey, asking if they have multiplechemical sensitive(MCS) students en-rolled either on or offcampus, and if sowhat they are doing toaccommodate thesestudents. I’m gettingsome disappointingresponses (surprise,surprise). Most are writing that they haveno students declared as MCS. One col-lege responded saying that little can bedone about living quarters. On the otherhand, one small private college inLaurenburg responded with what seemsto be a sincere desire to accept and ac-commodate those with MCS.

I began looking into this issue becauseof my own struggles with MCS for the past20 years, and now because of mydaughter’s trouble finding appropriateaccommodations at a state university. Shewas given a full scholarship to a state col-lege in North Carolina. She went to NorthCarolina State University for one day and,because of immediate problems associatedwith her sensitivities with chemicals, hadto be withdrawn the very next day.

She then went to a local communitycollege. Into her second semester there,they put in new carpets and she couldn’tattend classes there anymore. We feelsomeone should be reaching out to herinstead of my trying to find and convincethe appropriate people. Anyway, I’mthinking of making this an “official” sur-vey, letting colleges know that I will bepublishing the results and the response

they give. I also feel that accommodat-ing a MCS student would be beneficialto asthmatics, cancer patients, studentssuffering from depression, Parkinson’s,MS, lupus, CFIDS or any disease of thenervous or immune systems, along withdiseases of the liver and kidney. I will alsoask them if they would consider settingup either a dorm floor or a completedormitory offering the living space tothose with any of these or related ill-nesses. This would involve a scent-freespace. Also, I will ask them to describetheir present pest control and housing/

lawn mainte-nance policies,providing ma-terial safetydata sheets onall productsused in theseoperations.

I will reportthe names of colleges that do not complywith all or part of the survey. I think thesurvey might put the colleges in an un-comfortable enough position to makechanges in at least some of their policies,and, also, it might spread an awareness ofthe harm caused by chemical exposuresand how eliminating unnecessary expo-sures will provide an atmosphere mostconducive to learning for all students (andteachers). Anyone that is interested in thesurvey, have questions or comments, cancontact me at [email protected] or(252) 480-3301.

Susan Wells Vaughan

Kill Devil Hills, NC

Dear Ms. Vaughan,We are sorry to hear of the injustices thatyou and your daughter are facing. It isunfair that people like you are not betterprotected from unwanted chemical expo-sure while at school or any other publicplace for that matter. You and your daugh-ter deserve the right to be informed of pes-ticides used in your daughter’s school. Be-yond Pesticides/NCAMP works on similarissues everyday, but we can not do it alone.

We are glad to know that you are activelydoing something about the problems withthe assault of chemical exposure. It takestime and effort to create change. Don’t giveup because perseverance does pay off. Keepup the great work. We are sending you someinformation we think will be helpful inapproaching colleges regarding this issue.We are very interested in the responses youwill be getting from your survey and hopeto publish your findings in a future issue ofPesticides and You.

Worker UsesHazardous PesticideWithout TrainingDear Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP,

On January 8, 1998, I was assigned thetask of working with a fumigant crew. Iam not certified as a handler of pesti-cides. Not knowingly or aware of safepractices, I ate and smoked cigarettesaround the job site. I am now aware ofmy exposure to the fumigant used thatday, methyl bromide. I ask you to assistme in this matter.

Golat Mann

Norfolk, VA

Dear Mr. Mann,Unfortunately, most states do not requirethe person applying a restricted use pesti-cide like methyl bromide to be certified orlicensed to use the product as long as theperson is “supervised” by someone who iscertified or licensed in the state. The lawsin place do not even require the supervisorto be physically present at the job site. Pes-ticides, especially methyl bromide, are toxicchemicals that must be handled with theutmost care, if they are used. Any personhandling pesticides like methyl bromideshould be properly trained. Methyl bromideis an odorless, colorless gas, widely usedas a soil-sterilant. The U.S. EPA reportedin the 94/95 Pesticides Industry Sales andUsage (August 1997), that methyl bromideis the fourth most commonly used pesticideapplied by an owner or hired professional

edited by Kagan Owens


Write Us!Whether you love us, hate us, or justwant to speak your mind, we wantto hear from you. All mail must havea day time phone and a verifiable ad-dress. Space is limited so some mailmay not be printed. Mail that isprinted will be edited for length andclarity. Please address your mail to:

NCAMP • 701 E Street, SEWashington, D.C. 20003fax: 202-543-4791email: [email protected]

KaganOwens isBeyondPesticides/NCAMP’sInformationCoordinator

in the non-agricultural sector. Farmworkersexposed to methyl bromide suffer from skinirritation, cancer, birth defects, central ner-vous system, kidney and lung damage, anddeath. Methyl bromide is also 50 timesmore harmful to the earth’s ozone layerthan already banned CFCs. Evidence showsthat non-lethal exposures can pro-duce muscle weakness, abnor-mal reflexes, visual disorders,headache and malaise. If youor your co-workers are expe-riencing any of these symp-toms, you should see a physi-cian to confirm symptoms, ob-tain a diagnosis and receivetreatment. You should discuss thehealth hazards of using pesticides and notbeing properly trained with your employer.Ask your employer to use alternatives totoxic pesticides and if pesticides must beused, ask your employer to provide train-ing to all employees who will be workingwith the chemicals. If you or any of yourco-workers are experiencing any healtheffects associated with this exposure, senda formal complaint detailing the exposureto the manufacturer of the pesticide as wellas the U.S. EPA.

Tomato FarmerFed Up with DriftDear Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP,

For the past seven years we have beenpoisoned by a herbicide known as Facet(quinclorac). This is a selective herbicideused to control certain grasses in the pro-duction of rice. However, it is a very po-tent and dangerous chemical that is con-taminating many off-target plants, someas far away as 5 miles. We are involvedin commercial tomato farming, and ac-cording to the label, tomatoes are highlysensitive plants that can be affected byFacet. Only one microgram can causephysical damage to the crop. We attendedpublic meetings on the problem held inLittle Rock, Arkansas by the ArkansasState Plant Board (ASPB). There weremore rice farmers and, of course, repre-

sentatives of BASF Corporation therethan the general public! When the ASPBadvertised the announcement in thenewspapers, it put such a [small] noticein them that most people were com-pletely unaware of any such meeting. Inconversations we have had with our re-

gional EPA office inDallas, Texas, we havebeen told that theyare looking into it.Does it take themseven years to “lookinto something?” Inthe meantime, what

about the people whoare being exposed in

our communities, by the crop dusterswho spray anything that gets in theirway? We have personal accounts ofpeople in different places who have beensprayed directly by airplanes and havesuffered many different kinds of healthproblems as a result. We need to put astop to the indiscriminate use of deadlypesticides now! We have formed CitizensAgainst the Misuse of Pesticides to fightthis battle and have held town meetingsto inform people. Seven years without aprofitable crop has left us just aboutbroke.

Lane Falls and Melvin Messer

Harrisburg, AR

Dear Mr. Falls and Mr. Messer,We are sorry to hear of your economic lossfrom pesticide drift. Pesticide drift is a se-rious issue that does not get enough recog-nition by policy makers. According to aNorth Dakota State University ExtensionService factsheet, “herbicide drift can ac-cumulate on the downwind side of a field,in a shelterbelt, at the edge of a field or ina portion of an adjacent field. In somecases, herbicide accumulated in downwindareas can exceed the rate applied to thefield, with a small portion from each passof the sprayer drifting to the non-targetarea.” We are glad to hear that you havegotten together with others concerned aboutthis issue. Continue pressing state, regional

and federal agencies that are responsiblefor pesticide use and enforcement. Althoughenforcement is limited, many state laws di-rectly prohibit drift. Other states have with-drawn certain areas within the state fromspraying all or some pesticides. This issueis especially controversial for organic farm-ers who can lose their organic certificationif crops show pesticide residues from driftand conventional farmers who can losetheir crop. Unfortunately, pesticide driftcannot be completely eliminated or con-trolled without eliminating the widespreaduse of pesticides.

Washington, DC


EPA Funded Workshopon School IPM ExcludesEnvironmental Groups

The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) sponsored a workshop on strate-gies for implementing integrated pestmanagement (IPM) in schools, but leftout one important detail: the publichealth and environmental community.The workshop, “National IPM inSchools” on March 17-18, 1999, was or-ganized by Indiana University (IU) witha grant from the Biopesticides and Pol-lution Prevention Division of the Officeof Pesticide Programs at EPA. Attendeesmostly included state IPM coordinatorsand university extension services repre-sentatives, but notably included the Na-tional Pest Control Association. Afterrequesting to participate and being toldhe could only observe the meeting, Be-yond Pesticides/NCAMP’s Jay Feldmanwrote a strong letter to EPA Administra-tor Carol Browner, expressing grave con-cern that the agency is not hearing fromschools advocates and parents but is lis-tening to the pest control industry, whichhas a chemical-intensive definition ofIPM. “As a taxpayer I am outraged. As aparent I am deeply worried. As an envi-ronmentalist I am disgusted,” says theletter. No environmental or public healthgroups were invited to participate in thediscussion, and no public notice hadbeen offered prior to the workshop.Feldman points out in his letter that therewas no discussion at the workshop of the“critical questions that EPA is strugglingwith under the Food Quality Protection Act(FQPA) on calculating children’s expo-sure, pesticide impact on developing or-gans, aggregate risk calculation of dietaryand non-dietary exposure, and commonmechanism of effect.” The workshop evi-denced the differing views on what IPMreally is, with some saying it is a methodto reduce pesticide use while others saypesticides are an indispensable compo-

nent ofIPM. Work-shop leader MarcLame, professor at IU and meetingconvenor, apologized to Beyond Pesti-cides/NCAMP for excluding the publichealth point of view, saying it was notintentional. When Director of theBiopesticides and Pollution PreventionDivision, Janet Andersen, was askedabout the possibility of a federal IPMprogram, she replied that the Fed-eral Insecticide, Fungicide, and Ro-denticide Act would have tobe changed to allow forthat, but right now EPAcan provide educationalmaterials about IPM toschools. Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP disagrees, saying itis unreasonable to exposechildren to pesticides whennonchemical alternatives exist.Contact Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP.

USDA Scientists FindPeach Oil EffectiveAgainst Pests, MayReplace Methyl BromideThe substance that gives peaches theirsweet smell is effective against certainpests often controlled with the toxic fu-

migantmethyl bro-

mide, says CharlesWilson, Agricultural

Research Service, U.S. Department of Ag-riculture. Wilson and his researchersfound that the substance, calledbenzaldahyde, successfully kills pestssuch as the rice weevil and the lesser grainborer, as well as soil fungus. Benzaldahyde

is already produced syntheti-cally for flavorings, perfumes,

and dyes, and is being consid-ered an inexpensive methyl

bromide replacement. Be-cause of its toxicity andcapacity to deplete theozone layer, methyl bro-mide is scheduled forphase-out by the U.S. by

the year 2005, according toa congressional decision in

October 1998. This is fouryears later than the original phase-

out date set by the 1987 internationaltreaty, the Montreal Protocol and the CleanAir Act. So far, investigation on peach oilhas been done in the laboratory, but fieldtrials are scheduled to take place soon.This story was featured in several news-papers around the country, including theNew York Times on March 14, 1999. Con-tact Charles Wilson, USDA-ARS, 45Wiltshire Road, Kearneysville, WV, 25430,304-725-3451, [email protected].

by Beth Fiteni


EPA’s EndocrineDisruptor ScreeningProgram UpdateThe Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) is ready to start setting prioritiesin implementing its Endocrine DisruptorScreening Program (EDSP), establishedby the Food Quality Protection Act(FQPA). On December 28, 1998, the EPApublished notice of its EDSP Statementof Policy in the Federal Register, which

describes the kind of bioassays that willbe performed to see the effects of certainchemicals over generations of lab ani-mals. The release of the guidance comesseveral months after its original due dateof August 3, 1998 (see Technical ReportAug-Sept., 1998 Vol. 13, No. 8-9). Thepublic comment period on the guidanceended February 26, 1999. Some of theissues raised by the EPA proposal includewhether or not a chemical binding to thehormone receptor of a cell constitutes adisruption. Industry would like the causefor action to be visible adverse effects andnot just an alteration of the structure ofthe hormone system, whereas health ad-vocacy groups say attachment to a cell’shormone receptor is enough cause foraction. Activists also say that not enoughattention is paid to developmental im-pacts during critical stages of prenataldevelopment.

There is also concern that effects maybe seen at extremely low levels, so somedebate preceded a decision to test at twolevels—one at the No Observable Ad-verse Effects Level (NOAEL) and onefour times smaller than that. This is im-portant because with endocrine disrupt-ing chemicals, “the dose makes the poi-son” paradigm gives way to issues of tim-ing of exposure at minute doses. EPA haswisely followed the Endocrine Disruptor

Screening and Testing Advisory Commit-tee (EDSTAC) recommendation of exam-ining not only estrogenic effects but alsoandrogenic and thyroid effects. TheEDSTAC is a panel of experts which ad-vises EPA on how to structure the Endo-crine Disruption Program. Aside fromthe science questions involved in settingup the program, there are also economicissues: the EPA has been budgeted $3.2million for endocrine disruptor work in1999, but the needed resources are closerto $40 million. Under FQPA, EPA hasuntil August 1999 to issue testing pro-tocols for endocrine disruption to beused in its Pesticide Registration Pro-gram. The proposed budget for 2000 is$7.7 million. Contact Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP or see proposed statement of policyat EPA website http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/1998/December/Day-28/t34298.htm.

Industry Holds FQPAConference, PestManagement CentersProposed by RomingerOn March 23-24, 1999, the InternationalSociety of Regulatory Toxicology andPharmacology and the Council for Agri-cultural Science and Technology (CAST)co-sponsored a conference on the FoodQuality Protection Act (FQPA), at whichDeputy Secretary Richard Romingerstated that the Environmental Protec-tion Agency and U.S. Department of Ag-riculture are considering creation of 12regional pest management centersaround the country to assist growers inthe transition brought about by FQPA. Ac-cording to Food Regulation Weekly,Rominger said the centers would be lo-cated at existing land grant university fa-cilities, and “would carry out USDA’s re-search and education plan to help grow-ers overcome the risks they face throughFQPA.” The centers would cover geo-graphical areas with similar crop patternsand pest problems, and would serve threepurposes: to assist with replacing chemi-

cals one by one, to develop “multiple-tactic” pest management strategies forcrops whose loss would cause severe eco-nomic consequences, and to start a RiskAvoidance and Mitigation Program thatwould combine concerns about waterquality. Rominger said, “The goal iseliminating pesticide residues in foodcrops and water.”

Participants at the conference werevery critical of FQPA and Congress, say-ing Congress has created a problem thatit doesn’t want to solve. Rick Jarman ofNational Food Processors Associationsaid FQPA reflects a reaction to mediaevents instead of a true food safety prob-lem. Mari Peltier, California Departmentof Pesticide Regulation, says looking atfood residues is useless, especially sincethere is so much lacking data, and thatthe real driver should be farmworkersafety because if we protect them we pro-tect everyone. Larry Elworth, formerlyof USDA and now with the Program forStrategic Pest Management, said FQPAcontributes to the erosion of the public’sperception of food safety. JeannineKenney, formerly with Consumer’s Union(CU), says the recent CU study publishedin Consumer Reports (see PAY, Vol. 18No.4) should not be used to scare con-sumers. She told conference participants

that Consumers Union is frus-trated by the delay caused

by the Tolerance Reas-sessment Advisory Com-mittee (TRAC) process(of which she was a mem-ber), and that participantsshould “stop accusingEPA of not using sound

science.”In March 1999, CAST scientists pro-

duced an issue paper expressing the con-cerns about the possibility of losing cer-tain pesticides, especially for “minor use”crops, which include all fruits and veg-etables. The group claims that it agreesin principal with the goals of the FQPA.Contact Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP, or viewCAST issue paper at http://www.cast-science.org/fqp1_ip.htm.

Mail


Around the Country

Move Over Soybeans,Soon There’ll BeRoundup-Ready TreesMonsanto Corporation has announced thatit is branching out its work in bio-technology and will create tree seed-lings that tolerate herbicides, suchas Roundup (glyphosate), andgrow faster and make better pa-per, according to the company.These new “better fiber” treeswill likely not be ready for salebefore 2004. First candidatesfor the genetic alteration in-clude commonly plantedvarieties such as eucalyptus,poplar, Radiata pine, andsweetgum. Monsanto willbe working with severalother companies in a jointventure for the research,expected to cost $60 mil-lion over five years. The co-venturers include NewZealand’s Fletcher Challenge Group, a pa-per, energy, and forestry company; Inter-national Paper Company of New York, apaper and forest products company; and,Westvaco paper and packaging company,also of New York. Westvaco currently owns1.5 million acres of timberlands in the U.S.and Brazil, according to Monsanto. Con-tact Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP or LisaDrake, Monsanto, 314-694-3540. SeeMonsanto’s webpage at http://www.monsanto.com/ag/articles/99-04-06forestryJV.htm.

Child Sickened byPesticide Exposure atSchool, Parents SueTen year old Darrell Martinez developedmultiple chemical sensitivities in 1997after being exposed to pesticides sprayedat his school between 1994 and 1998. Hisparents are now suing Chama Valley In-dependent School District (CVIS), say-ing that it allowed the spraying of pesti-

cides that were known to have harmfulside effects. The Martinezes say that theschool district continued to spray despiteits awareness of Darrell’s health prob-lems. In December 1997, a CVIS spokes-person told the Martinezes that the

school would accommodate Darrell’sillness by beginning to implement in-tegrated pest management, and byonly spraying the cafeteria. Then, inFebruary 1998, CVIS’ superinten-dent told Mr. Martinez that theschool had stopped spraying alto-gether. However, two months later,Mr. Martinez saw New MexicoPest Control spraying schoolgrounds 50 feet from where chil-dren wait for their buses. Thesuit charges that the school andthe pest control company failedto offer notice or warning, andthe school failed to provideDarrell with alternate educa-tion when he was unable toattend classes due to contin-ued spraying. Lawyers have

identified two of the chemicals sprayed:“Conquer Residual Insecticide Concen-trate,” with active ingredientesfenvalerate, and “Wasp and Hornet JetFreeze,” with active ingredient carbaryl.Mrs. Martinez obtained Material SafetyData Sheets on both of these and they listsimilar possible side effects as the ones

experienced by Darrell:

redness of face and ears, peeling tongue,swelling eyes, fevers, asthma, headachesand difficulty in thinking and performing.The Bureau of Pesticide Management of theNew Mexico Department of Agriculturehas investigated the Martinez case and dis-missed it, finding that all pesticides usedat the school “were used in accordance withlabel directions.” Contact Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP or Sue Darcey, Pesticide Report,

3918 Oglethorpe Street, Hyattsville, MD20782, 301-864-3088.

Pesticide ResistantClothingWhat will they think of next? The NewYork Times Observatory on March 30,1999 reported on the invention of pesti-cide and germ resistant blue jeans. Yes,you read it correctly—clothing that iscapable of breaking down pesticidechemicals so that they do not reach theskin underneath. The idea behind thesegarments is to make protecting oneselffrom pesticide exposure easier and thusmore likely to occur. Farmworkers of-ten do not wear protective gear becauseit is too hot and uncomfortable. GangSun, Ph.D., researcher at the Universityof California, Davis is behind the re-search, and presented his new findingsto the American Chemical Society inMarch. The clothing incorporates a com-pound that reacts with the pesticides toneutralize them. The N-halamine com-pound, hydantoin, is reactivated eachtime by the addition of a chlorine atomwhen the clothing is washed in chlori-nated water. A Seattle-based company,HaloSource Corp., has already purchasedthe rights to Sun’s research. Scientists saythe compound has been successful with99% of their trials of carbamate pesti-cides, but that the clothing has not beentested against organophosphates such asmalathion. According to HaloSource, thebreak-down even occurred after 50 laun-dry cycles. When asked about health ef-fects of the treated fabric, Dr. Sun said,“The halamine structure does not affecthuman skin. The hydantoin and itshalamine derivatives are used in swim-ming pools as disinfectants and chlorinestabilizers. That is why we selected it.Another point is that the hydantoin ischemically grafted on cellulose and can-not come off from fabrics easily.” Con-tact: Assistant Professor Gang Sun, Textilesand Clothing Department of the College ofAgricultural and Environmental Sciences,

edited by Kagan Owens


Around the Country

235 Everson Hall, University of Califor-nia, Davis, CA 95616, 530-752-0840,[email protected], or HaloSource, 3005First Avenue, #300, Seattle, WA 98121,888-909-8765.

Studies Continue toFind PesticideContaminationLinked to FrogMalformationsStudies suggesting that pesticidesmay be related to deformi-ties seen in frogs are be-ginning to pile up. Inrising numbers,frogs around theU.S. and Canada arebeing found withextra limbs or missingor misplaced eyes. Someother suspected causes in-clude mercury, endocrine disruptors, andPCBs in the environment.

An August 1998 study supported bythe Vermont Public Interest Group(VPIRG), Effects of Sulfonyl Urea Herbi-cides in Xenopus laevis: An Evaluation ofDevelopmental Toxicity and Impact onMetamorphosis, by Douglas Fort, Ph.D.,et al., looked at the effects of sulfonylureas (SUs) on laboratory-raised frogs.The study found that SUs significantlyaffect tail resorbtion and limb develop-ment, both of which are controlled bythe thyroid gland. Animals with malfunc-tioning thyroids are likely to have nu-merous problems and lower survivalrates. Sulfonyl ureas are used for variouspurposes, including pharmaceuticals andherbicides. They were created to replacemore harmful chemicals, as a “safe” al-ternative, but still have problems associ-ated with them. They are persistent andpotent even at low levels, are suspectedendocrine disruptors, and may affectplant fertility and the internal organs ofanimals. They cause phytotoxic effectsbelow the level of detection.

Martin Oulette, Ph.D., McGill Univer-sity, has conducted several studies onfrogs over recent years. One of them,entitled Hindlimb deformities (ectromelia,ectodactyly) in free living anurans fromagricultural habitats, 1997, found highrates of hindlimb deformities in frogs liv-ing in agricultural areas. Abnormalitiesand genetic damage were found in vari-ous species of frogs in the test area, sug-gesting that the cause is environmental.Dr. Oulette continues to do studies, andBeyond Pesticides/NCAMP will coverresults as they are made known.

A study in November 1996,entitled Flow cytometric as-

say for in vivo genotoxic ef-fects of pesticides in

green frogs by L.A.Lowcock, et al.,looked at frogs oneto five days after an

application ofcarbofuran on corn␣ and

azinphos-methyl on pota-toes. These and other pesticides

were present in the test area. DNA testswere performed on the frogs and geneticdamage was discovered, as werelimb deformities. Scientists areunsure whether there is causa-tion or just a correlation be-tween the DNA damage and de-formities.

All the findings are alarmingbecause frogs are considered sen-tinel species; they are especiallyvulnerable to environmental pollutantsdue to their permeable skin and biphasallife cycle, so many believe that the prob-lem should be taken as a warning toeliminate sources of persistent toxic pol-lutants. For copies of the studies (62pp),send $8.00 (ppd) to Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP.

Schools in Pittsburgh andPhiladelphia Adopt LeastToxic Pest Control PoliciesThe two largest school districts in Penn-

sylvania have decided within the pastyear to adopt pest management policiesthat ensure Pittsburgh (May 1998) andPhiladelphia (October 1998) areaschools will use integrated pest manage-ment (IPM). If pesticides are sprayed,schools are required to wait a minimumof 24 hours before students are allowedto re-enter the buildings and will have tonotify parents what chemicals are used onschool grounds (chemical use is last re-sort). Preventive measures, such as bet-ter waste management, sealing of cracksand crevices to stop pests from nesting inbuildings, inspections, and screening ofwindows have also been established.Clean Water Action, which advocatedwith other groups on the policies, did a1996 follow-up study to determine thesuccess of the school IPM programs thathad been established in other PA schooldistricts since 1992, and found that 86%of PA schools districts that adopted IPMonly used pesticides once per year. Thir-teen out of 21 school districts controlledpests without use of any chemical pesti-cides. A survey of school princi-

pals reveals satisfac-tion with the IPMprogram, notingless exposure totoxics, peace ofmind, good pub-lic relations, less

absenteeism, andthat costs did not go up since

solutions are relatively permanent.A coalition of more than 100 parent,

teacher, environmental, health and activ-ist groups has been promoting a bill forseveral years, the Pesticide NotificationAct, in the state’s General Assembly thatwould mandate policies similar to thoseadopted by Philadelphia and Pittsburghschool districts for all school districts inPennsylvania. The bill is being reintro-duced into the state Senate and Housein 1999. Commented Trudy Strassburgerof Clean Water Action in Philadelphia,“While we’re delighted that the Philadel-phia and Pittsburgh school districtsadopted these policies, with 501 school

Mail


Around the Country by Beth Fiteni

districts in the state, our children can’tafford to wait for every district to switchto IPM. The Pesticide Notification Actwould guarantee that all children areprotected against unnecessary exposureto toxic pesticides in the schools.” A1994 Clean Water Action study calledWhat You Don’t Know Can Hurt You,found that most schools were reluctantto offer information on their pest con-trol practices and that most schools usedpesticides containing at least one toxicchemical. For more information, contactTrudy Strassberger, Clean Water Action,1128 Walnut Street, Suite 300, Philadel-phia, PA 19107, 215-629-4022, [email protected].

Los Angeles FollowsSan Francisco’s Lead InAdopting ProgressiveSchool IPM ProgramThe Los Angeles Unified School District(LAUSD) adopted in March, 1999 agroundbreaking integrated pest manage-ment (IPM) policy that will phase outuse of toxic chemicals. Grassroots com-munity groups and environmentalists,including Pesticide Watch and Physi-cians for Social Responsibility, workedwith the school district for a year toachieve this success. The policy requiresa ban on the “worst first,” meaning anychemicals that are known to cause can-cer, endocrine disruption, and nervedamage. The new program will entailimproved cleaning efforts such as steamcleaning behind ovens and refrigerators,and will require more manual labor butwith fewer health risks to students andstaff. A “Pest Management Team” thatincludes school staff, a medical practi-tioner, parents, and the public will beformed to help oversee implementation.Pesticides may be used when other meth-ods fail, and only pesticides approved bythe Pest Management Team can be used.Overall pest management efforts will fo-cus on sanitation in and around the

buildings and a training program on pestprevention is part of the plan. The policyalso includes more right-to-know for par-ents about what chemicals and othermethods are being implemented in theirchildren’s schools. Parents will be giveninformation at the beginning of the year,and may have access to school recordsof IPM activity. This effort to put an IPMpolicy in place resulted from an incidentin Spring 1998 when several childrenwere accidentally sprayed with a pesti-cide as they arrived at school. An inquiryled to the discovery that pesticide usewas taking place at unreasonable andunsafe levels around the school district.Contact Christina Graves, Pesticide Watch,11965 Venice Blvd., Los Angeles, CA,90066, 310-397-1168.

2,4-D Found inCanadian RainwaterIn a soon to be published study by BernieHill, Ph.D., pesticide residue chemist,(Lethbridge Research Centre, funded by

Agriculture Canada), the herbicide 2,4-D was found in rainwater samples insouthern Alberta, Canada. 2,4-D is a com-mon, inexpensive herbicide used on agri-cultural areas and turf to eradicate broadleaf weeds such as dandelions. In all 150samples taken from eight Lethbridge,Alberta locations, including residentialbackyards, a rural golf course and a farm,2,4-D was found in some amount, as were

Beth Fiteniis Beyond

Pesticides/NCAMP’sProgram

Coordinator

bromoxynil and dicamba in much smalleramounts. The study ran from May 30 toAugust 17, 1998. The amount of the her-bicide found ranged from 5.1 parts per bil-lion (ppb) on the golf course to 1.6 ppb ina residential backyard. The Canadianaquatic life guideline for 2,4-D is 4 ppb andthe drinking water guideline is 100 ppb.

Products containing 2,4-D carry thesignal word “danger” and are consideredhighly toxic due to serious eye and skinirritations that they have producedamong agricultural workers applying theherbicide. A National Cancer Institutestudy has shown 2,4-D to cause a deadlycancer in dogs that are repeatedly ex-posed to the pesticide from licking theirpaws. Other studies link 2,4-D’s agricul-tural use to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma infarmers. The study’s findings raise ques-tions about surface water contaminationand air pollution.

Scientists at the Alberta Research In-stitute will conduct further studies in theLethbridge area as well as surroundingagricultural areas this summer. It is sus-pected that 2,4-D levels are high in theLethbridge region due to the area’s per-sistent hot, windy, and dusty weather andaerial application of agricultural chemi-cals. 2,4-D levels found in the study were10-50 times higher than levels reportedin other Canadian locations, accordingto the author. Pesticides have also beendetected in European rainwater samples.Contact Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP forcopy of study summary, or Dr. Bernie Hill,Lethbridge Research Centre, P.O. Box 3000,Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, T1J 4B1,403-317-2267.


The Right Way to Vegetation ManagementA review of selected pest managementpolicies and programs on rights-of-way.

by Kagan Owens

Every year, millions of miles of roads, utility lines, rail-road corridors and other types of rights-of-way (ROWs)are treated with herbicides to control the growth of un-

wanted plants. However, increasing public concern over theuse of dangerous and inadequately tested pesticides has re-sulted in an increasing effort over the last decade to pass statelaws and local policies requiring notification of pesticide use,restrictions on application types and implementation of least-toxic approaches to vegetationmanagement.

The following review high-lights pest management onROWs in select states. It is nota review of all states. Listed aresixteen states, thirteen statesthat provide right-to-knowprovisions regarding ROW her-bicide applications and sixstates that incorporate theprinciples of an integrated pestmanagement (IPM) programinto their ROW management.Although definitions of IPM vary, while cultural, mechanical,biological methods are utilized in such programs, chemicalsare always a part of the programs adopted for management ofROWs. This is a review of policy and does not evaluate thedegree to which these policies are currently being enforced.

ROW management is governed by many different levelsof government, including state laws or administrative pro-cedures, state subdivisions’ or local government entities’ poli-cies, and voluntary agreements. As a result, inconsistencies

exist in overall protection from pesticide exposure. Manystates have separate policies for the different types of ROWs.Utility ROW requirements may be mandated by the state’sdepartment of agriculture, environment or other pesticidelead agency, while requirements for roadsides are under thereview of the state’s department of transportation. As a re-sult, the level of protection varies considerably and tends tobe deficient in protecting the public from the potential ex-

posure to pesticide applicationsalong ROWs.

The Case forNotificationChemical control of ROWs posehazards to human health and theenvironment. Although a numberof chemicals are registered for useon ROWs to control grasses,brush and trees, picloram(TordonTM), 2,4-D (WeedoneTM),dicamba (BanvelTM), trichlopyr(GarlonTM), glyphosate

(RoundupTM), fosamine ammonium (KreniteTM), hexazinone(VelparTM) and diuron (KarmexTM) are among the most com-monly used. Some of these herbicides are known to cause can-cer, birth defects, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, kidney/liverdamage and are toxic to wildlife. (See Table 1) New studies arecontinually finding serious problems associated with exposureto commonly used pesticides.

Many states have addressed the issue of ROW herbicide ap-plications by notifying the public of the application, enabling

Every year, millions of miles of roads,

utility lines, railroad corridors and other

types of rights-of-way (ROWs) are

treated with herbicides to control the

growth of unwanted plants.

Pesticides and You Vol. 19, No. 1, 1999Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

people to better protect themselves from pesticide exposure.Prior notification is commonly provided through newspapersand/or radio. However, the notification announcements tendto be in the newspaper’s legal section and do not appear or arenot heard frequently enough to impact a large population.Broadcast notification through such news media is intended toeither notify the public of the application(s) or of a hearing ona proposed ROW application. Targeted prior notification, al-though less common, is provided in some states, like Connecti-cut, Iowa, Maine and New Hampshire, to every property that isabutting or within a specific distance to the treated ROW prop-erty. Other states provide prior notification if a property owneror resident has requested to be placed on a notification regis-try of ROW applications, including Maine, New Hampshire,Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia. Somestates require the posting of signs to notify the public at allentrances to the ROW. Prior notification should be given to allproperty owners and tenants within one mile of the ROW appli-cation and should be complemented with the posting of signs.Posting of signs will provide notice to the general public thatenter a treated ROW.

The Case for AlternativesNotification cannot curb the potential impacts of ROW herbi-cides on humans and wildlife, given their potential to con-taminate wells, drainage ditches, lakes and air miles from thepesticide-treated area. Pesticide labels with instructions, suchas Tordon’s “Do not apply directlyto water,” are not strong enoughgiven the proximity of many ROWspray routes to water and the po-tential for ground or aerial drift orrunoff. Instructions, such as “Donot contaminate food or feed” or“Avoid drift,” are commonly ig-nored by applicators spraying inhigh winds, which carry the spraypast the intended application area.Some states have addressed the riskof using herbicides along ROWs bydeveloping an IPM program forROWs, restricting when and where pesticides can be appliedon ROWs and/or providing no-spray agreements. With the po-tential for contamination, chemical use and only least-toxic chemi-cal use, should be resorted to only if all other means, including theuse of mechanical, biological and cultural methods, of managingROWs have been exhausted.

Programs that adopt the principles of IPM can be carefullydesigned for the specific vegetation management needs foreach ROW situation and must include pest identification,population monitoring, determination of injury and actionlevels and selection of the most appropriate control tactics.Herbicides are just one of many available control tactics forunwanted ROWs vegetation. However, because of their highecological and sociological costs, and because their short-term,

temporary effects promote unstable plant communities, theyshould be considered only after all other less-toxic, more per-manent tactics have been exhausted. A long-term perspectiveis critical when developing a pest management strategy forROWs. Ideally, an ecologically stable plant community thatpersists in a state that does not reach injury levels should bethe goal for all ROWs. Intervention, when necessary to re-move unwanted vegetation, should be highly selective andnon-disruptive to other life forms of the community. ROWmanagement can become worse if competitors and naturalenemies of pest vegetation are inadvertently killed by herbi-cide applications.

Planting native vegetation, using mechanical, biological andnontoxic vegetation control methods are effective in reduc-ing and eliminating pesticide applications. Creating and en-couraging stable, low-maintenance vegetation is a more per-manent vegetation management strategy. The establishmentof desirable plant species that can out-compete undesirablespecies requires little maintenance and meets the requirementsfor ROW management. Although native vegetation may takemore time to establish itself, native flower and grass speciesare better adapted to local climate and stress than those in-troduced from Europe and Asia. Native plant species are es-pecially effective in providing increased erosion control, aes-thetics, wildlife habitat and biodiversity. Numerous states haveestablished roadside wildflower programs for these reasons.Cutting, girdling, mowing and grazing animals are successful

mechanical means to eradicate un-wanted vegetation on variousROWs. Mowing can be useful un-der certain circumstances, such aswhen the ROW must be maintainedas turf or low vegetation. Theschedule for mowing, if done, mustadjust to plant life cycles in orderfor maximum effectiveness. Theuses of fabric material and mulchunder roadside signs and guardrailsand on the edge of the shoulder areeffective in suppressing weeds.Other control methods include the

use of corn-gluten and steam treatments. Steam treatmentsinvolve 800 degrees Fahrenheit temperatures and low pres-sure. Borax has also been effective in killing vegetation. Anumber of plant pests can be controlled with the introduc-tion of natural insect enemies.

Integrated Roadside VegetationManagementSeveral states have adopted an Integrated Roadside Vegeta-tion Management (IRVM) Program. The program incorpo-rates principles of IPM. The National Roadside VegetationManagement Association and the Integrated Roadside Veg-etation Management Program Task Force have produced amanual, How to Develop and Implement An Integrated Road-

Planting native vegetation, using

mechanical, biological and nontoxic

vegetation control methods are

effective in reducing and eliminating

pesticide applications.


side Vegetation Management Program, which many states haveused in their plan for roadside ROWs. This program serves avariety of purposes including erosion control, wildlife habi-tat, scenic qualities, weed control, utility easements and rec-reation uses. It incorporates integrated management practices,like burning, seeding, mowing, but also incorporates spray-ing in the control of weeds, damaging insects and invaderplant species. Several states use this IPM or IRVM approach,including California, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, North Caro-lina, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin.

No-Spray AgreementsNo-spray agreements are offered by many states. These agree-ments between the ROW managing entity and the landownerrequire that the landowners maintain the ROW that is adja-cent to their property or the managing entity will agree tomaintain the ROW without using herbicides, sometimes atthe landowner’s expense. Maine, North Carolina and Oregonare examples of states that have no-spray agreements. NorthCarolina’s no-spray agreement is a private agreement, prob-ably the only one of its kinds in the country, made betweenthe utility companies and landowners.

State ReviewAlaska Administrative Code, chapter 18sections 90.500 and 90.520, require twonotices to be published in a local news-

paper “and in other media the central office con-siders appropriate” (18 AK ADMIN.CODE 90.50 (a) (1998)) for all ap-plications made by a governmentemployee using funds, materials orequipment of that government en-tity on a state-owned ROW.

California Food and Agricultural Code, section12978, requires signs to be posted when a pesticidewith a worker reentry interval of at least 24 hours is

applied on school grounds, parks, or “other public rights-of-way where public exposure is foreseeable” (CA FOOD &AGRIC. CODE § 12978 (1998)). Barriers may be used in-stead of the warning signs. Applications made by the Depart-ment of Transportation (CalTrans) on public highway ROWsare exempt from the posting requirements.

CalTrans established an internal policy to develop strate-gies to reduce and eliminate the use of pesticides along road-sides through a roadside vegetation environmental impactreport in 1992 which states that CalTrans is to decrease her-bicide use by 50% by the year 2000 and 80% by the year 2012.This report also pledged to not apply chemicals within 100feet of school bus stops. In response to local organizing bycommunity activists, CalTrans adopted a policy to halt herbi-cide spraying on highways in District 1, northwest Californiawhere local governments request it in 1997. Del Norte,Humbodlt, and Mendocino counties have voted for the elimi-

nation of all herbicides on roadsides.For further information on CalTrans

policies and lack of implementa-tion, see review of the California

for Alternatives to Toxics report,The Poisoning of Public Thor-

oughfares, on page 20.C o n n e c t i c u tGeneral Statutes,section 22a-66k

as amended by Public ActNo. 98-229, requires thatany electric, telephoneor telecommunication

Table 1. Adverse Health and Environmental Effects of Commonly Used Herbicides on Rights-of-Ways

Birth Reproductive Neuro- Kidney Liver Sensitizer / Detected in Potential Toxic to Toxic to Toxic toHerbicide Cancer Defects Effects toxic Damage Irritant Groundwater Leacher Birds Fish Bees

2,4-D ␣ •1 • • • • • • • • • •Dicamba ␣ •2 • • • • • •Diuron ␣ •3 • • • • • •Fosamineammonium • • •

Glyphosate • • • • • • •Hexazinone ␣ •4 • • • • • •Picloram • • • • •Triclopyr ␣ •5 • • • • • •

4. Group D carcinogen. EPA states that this assessment is “based on evidence thatwas equivocal (not entirely negative, but yet not convincing) since only statisti-cally significant increase was in Female mice.”

5. Group D carcinogen. EPA states that this assessment is “based on increases in mam-mary tumors in both the female rat and mouse, and adrenal pheochromocytomasin the male rate, which were considered to be only a marginal response.”

1. Adverse health effect based on National Cancer Institute

2. Group D carcinogen, a chemical that is not classifiable as to human carcinogeniceffect. EPA states that this assessment is because the “doses selected for the rat andmouse studies were not adequate.”

3. EPA classifies as a “known/ likely” carcinogen.

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, National Cancer Institute, California Department of Pesticide Regulation and Extension Toxicology Network and www.scorecard.org (Environmental Defense Fund).


STA

TE

Ala

ska

Cal

ifor

nia

Con

nec

ticu

t

Iow

a

Mai

ne

Mas

sach

use

tts

Mic

hig

an

Min

nes

ota

PR

IOR

NO

TIF

ICA

TIO

N

Stat

e R

OW

s th

at r

equ

ire

a pe

rmit

, 2

not

ices

in

loca

l new

spap

ers

& “

in a

ny

oth

er m

edia

th

e ce

n-

tral

off

ice

con

side

rs a

ppro

pria

te.”

Ele

ctri

c, t

elep

hon

e or

tel

ecom

mu

nic

atio

n c

om-

pan

y, 4

8-h

our

prio

r n

otif

icat

ion

to

all

abu

ttin

gpr

oper

ty.

Loc

al, r

egu

lar

circ

ula

tion

new

spap

ers

betw

een

3&

60

days

pri

or t

o tr

eatm

ent,

if n

o su

ch n

ewsp

a-pe

r n

otic

e to

all

lan

dow

ner

s w

ith

in 5

00 f

eet

ofap

plic

atio

n a

rea.

Indi

vidu

al c

an c

onta

ct R

OW

en

tity

to b

e n

otif

ied

of a

ny

appl

icat

ion

wit

hin

500

fee

t.N

otif

icat

ion

reg

istr

y, 6

hrs

to

14 d

ays

prio

r n

otic

efo

r ap

plic

atio

n m

ade

wit

hin

250

fee

t of

pro

pert

y.

Roa

dway

, ra

ilro

ad,

pow

er l

ines

, co

ndu

its,

ch

an-

nel

s or

com

mu

nic

atio

n li

nes

, pu

blic

mee

tin

gs &

45-d

ay c

omm

ent

per

iod

on

5-y

ear

Veg

etat

ion

Man

agem

ent

Pla

n &

th

e an

nu

al Y

earl

y O

pera

-ti

onal

Pla

n (

YO

P)

RO

W p

ropo

sal.

Pla

ns

mu

st lo

okat

alt

ern

ativ

e ap

proa

ches

.

Bro

adca

st o

r fo

liar

RO

W a

ppli

cati

ons,

com

mer

-ci

al a

ppli

cati

on,

pers

onal

con

tact

, lo

cal,

reg

ula

rci

rcu

lati

on n

ewsp

aper

or

prio

r w

ritt

en n

otif

ica-

tion

, to

resi

den

ts o

f pr

oper

ty w

ith

in t

arge

t ar

ea.

PO

STIN

G

“Pu

blic

RO

W w

her

e pu

blic

exp

osu

re i

s fo

rese

e-ab

le,”

pes

tici

des

wit

h w

orke

r re

entr

y in

terv

al o

fat

lea

st 2

4 h

ours

, pos

t si

gn o

r cr

eate

bar

rier

.

Ele

ctri

c, t

elep

hon

e or

tel

ecom

mu

nic

atio

n c

om-

pan

y, a

ppli

cati

on t

o po

le, p

ost

sign

on

eac

h p

ole

trea

ted.

Hig

hw

ays,

road

s, s

tree

ts, a

lley

s, s

idew

alks

& r

ec-

reat

ion

al tr

ails

wit

hin

cor

pora

te li

mit

s of

mu

nic

i-pa

liti

es, p

ost

at e

ach

en

d of

tre

ated

are

a.

Sign

pos

ted

prio

r to

app

lica

tion

, re

mai

n p

oste

dfo

r 48

hou

rs a

t po

int

of e

ntr

ance

to

area

.

PE

STIC

IDE

S A

LTE

RN

AT

IVE

/ R

EST

RIC

TIO

N

Cal

Tran

s pl

edge

d to

dec

reas

e h

erbi

cide

use

50%

by 2

000,

not

app

ly p

esti

cide

s w

ith

in 1

00 f

eet

sch

ool

bus

stop

& u

se I

PM

.C

alTr

ans

Dis

tric

t 1

loca

l go

vern

men

ts c

an o

ptfo

r n

o h

erbi

cide

spr

ayin

g.

Pro

hib

itio

n o

f ae

rial

bro

ad-s

pect

rum

pes

tici

deap

plic

atio

ns

for

non

-agr

icu

ltu

re p

urp

oses

. Pu

b-li

c h

igh

way

, pro

hib

itio

n o

f aer

ial p

esti

cida

l du

stap

plic

atio

ns

wit

hin

100

fee

t.

IA D

OT

req

uir

ed t

o co

ntr

ol n

oxio

us

wee

ds

alon

g ro

adsi

des

wit

h h

erbi

cide

s on

ly i

f m

ow-

ing

or o

ther

con

trol

not

pra

ctic

al. 4

1 ou

t of

99

cou

nti

es p

arti

cipa

te i

n I

RV

M1 p

rogr

am.

Uti

lity

& D

OT

off

er “

No

spra

y ag

reem

ents

” fo

rin

divi

dual

or

mu

nic

ipal

ity

to a

dopt

.

Roa

dway

, rai

lroa

d, p

ower

lin

es, c

ondu

its,

ch

an-

nel

s or

com

mu

nic

atio

n l

ines

, p

roh

ibit

ion

on

aeri

al a

ppli

cati

on to

RO

Ws.

Pro

hib

itio

n o

n h

an-

dlin

g, m

ixin

g or

load

ing

her

bici

de c

once

ntr

ate

wit

hin

100

fee

t of

sen

siti

ve a

rea.

Res

tric

tion

son

pes

tici

de a

ppli

cati

ons

in r

egar

ds t

o di

stan

ceto

wat

er s

upp

lies

, su

rfac

e w

ater

, w

etla

nds

, in

-h

abit

ed &

agr

icu

ltu

re a

reas

.Y

OP

mu

st i

ncl

ude

IP

M i

n t

he

plan

.

Stat

e re

quir

ed t

o u

se I

PM

in

man

agem

ent

ofro

adsi

de p

lan

s. I

RV

M p

rogr

am f

or l

ocal

are

asto

ado

pt.

Tab

le 2

. Sum

ma

ry o

f se

lect

ed p

est

ma

nage

men

t p

olic

ies

& p

rogr

am

s fo

r ri

ghts

-of-

wa

y.


STA

TE

New

Ham

psh

ire

New

Yor

k

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Ore

gon

Pen

nsy

lvan

ia

Ver

mon

t

Was

hin

gton

Wes

t V

irgi

nia

PR

IOR

NO

TIF

ICA

TIO

N

Pow

er tr

ansm

issi

on &

dis

trib

utio

n lin

es, g

as p

ipe-

lines

, rai

lroa

ds, p

ublic

road

RO

W, b

etw

een

June

&O

ctob

er 1

5, d

irec

tly

to r

esid

ence

s w

ithi

n 20

0 fe

et10

day

s pr

ior

to tr

eatm

ent.

Not

ific

atio

n in

new

spa-

pers

onc

e fo

r 2 w

eeks

at l

east

45

days

pri

or to

trea

t-m

ent

& i

nclu

des

cut

out

coup

on f

or a

ll ab

utti

ngow

ners

to re

ceiv

e no

tice

30

days

pri

or to

trea

tmen

t.

NY

DO

T s

et u

p to

ll fr

ee n

um

ber

to fi

nd

out s

pray

-in

g pl

ans.

Uti

liti

es p

rovi

de p

rior

not

ice

of R

OW

her

bici

deap

plic

atio

ns

in in

sert

s of

cu

stom

er b

ills

, ado

pted

by p

riva

te a

gree

men

t be

twee

n s

tate

uti

liti

es a

nd

lan

dow

ner

s.

Res

tric

ted

use

pes

tici

de g

rou

nd

appl

icat

ion

s to

RO

W b

y co

mm

erci

al o

r pu

blic

app

lica

tor,

not

ice

publ

ish

ed i

n 2

new

spap

ers

or o

ral

or c

erti

fied

mai

l n

otic

e to

all

abu

ttin

g re

side

nce

s. A

butt

ing

resi

den

ce c

an r

equ

est

addi

tion

al in

form

atio

n r

e-ga

rdin

g ap

plic

atio

n.

12 t

o 72

hou

r pr

ior

not

ific

atio

n t

o an

yon

e th

atw

orks

or

live

s w

ith

in 5

00 fe

et o

f tre

atm

ent s

ite

&on

th

e m

edic

ally

ver

ifie

d h

yper

sen

siti

ve r

egis

try.

Ele

ctri

c u

tili

ty R

OW

, ow

ner

of

prop

erty

wit

hin

1,00

0 fe

et c

an re

ques

t to

be n

otif

ied

30 to

60

days

prio

r to

tre

atm

ent.

New

spap

er n

otif

icat

ion

on

cea

wee

k fo

r 4

wee

ks,

incl

ude

cu

t ou

t co

upo

n t

obe

lis

ted

on n

otif

icat

ion

reg

istr

y.A

ny

per

son

mak

ing

a p

esti

cid

e ap

pli

cati

on t

oR

OW

, 25

to

60 d

ays

prio

r to

tre

atm

ent,

not

ice

prin

ted

in 2

new

spap

ers,

on

ce a

wee

k fo

r 2

wee

ks,

not

ice

also

by

eith

er r

adio

, mai

l to

abu

ttin

g re

si-

den

ts 2

wee

ks p

rior

or

pers

onal

ly d

eliv

ered

10

days

pri

or t

o tr

eatm

ent.

Cer

tifi

ed a

ppli

cato

r tr

eati

ng

RO

W, n

otic

e at

leas

t2

hou

rs p

rior

, to

abu

ttin

g re

side

nts

on

th

e m

edi-

call

y ve

rifi

ed p

esti

cide

hyp

erse

nsi

tive

reg

istr

y.

Uti

lity

RO

W, n

otic

e 60

to 1

20 d

ays

prio

r to

trea

t-m

ent

to a

ll n

ews

med

ia,

to a

ll p

erso

ns

on t

he

hyp

erse

nsi

tive

reg

istr

y &

abu

ttin

g re

side

nts

wh

oh

ave

mad

e a

wri

tten

req

ues

t to

be

not

ifie

d.

PO

STIN

G

Cer

tifi

ed a

ppli

cato

r tr

eati

ng

RO

W, p

ost n

otic

e on

each

“po

wer

app

lica

tion

app

arat

us.

”

PE

STIC

IDE

S A

LTE

RN

AT

IVE

/ R

EST

RIC

TIO

N

Mon

roe

Cou

nty

use

wel

fare

cli

ents

to

mec

han

i-ca

lly

cut

wee

ds a

lon

g ro

adsi

des.

Pro

hib

itio

n o

n a

eria

l ap

plic

atio

n t

o pu

blic

roa

dR

OW

or

wit

hin

25

feet

of

road

.N

C D

OT

in

tern

ally

ado

pted

IP

M p

rogr

am.

Pri

vate

, n

o-sp

ray

agre

emen

t av

aila

ble

betw

een

lan

dow

ner

& u

tili

ty c

ompa

ny.

Stat

e ag

enci

es r

equ

ired

to u

se I

PM

. OR

DO

T d

is-

tric

t IP

M p

lan

s av

aila

ble

to p

ubl

ic f

or r

evie

w.

OR

DO

T c

an p

rovi

de n

o sp

ray

agre

emen

t.

If R

OW

tra

vers

es p

rope

rty,

can

req

ues

t el

ectr

icu

tili

ty n

ot u

se a

ny

her

bici

des,

su

ch r

equ

est

cost

s$3

0 to

th

e D

ept

of P

ubl

ic S

ervi

ces

for

adm

inis

-tr

ativ

e co

sts.

Stat

e ag

enci

es r

equ

ired

to

use

IP

M.

DO

T o

ffer

s n

o sp

ray

agre

emen

ts.

Pro

hib

itio

n o

n a

eria

l ap

plic

atio

n o

f P

iclo

ram

&D

icam

ba &

all

oth

er h

erbi

cide

s w

ith

in s

peci

fic

dist

ance

to re

crea

tion

are

as, r

esid

enti

al s

tru

ctu

res

& r

oads

.

1 In

tegr

ated

Roa

dsid

e V

eget

atio

n M

anag

emen

t P

rogr

am


company that provides for the application of pesticides withina ROW maintained by such company must notify owners, oc-cupants or tenants of buildings or dwellings abutting the ROWat least 48 hours in advance. If the company provides for theapplication of pesticides to any utility pole, after it has beeninstalled, it is required to post a notification sign on each pole.If the company provides for the application of pesticides inconnection with tree or brush removal from private property,the company must get consent from the occupant before pro-ceeding. State, municipality, pesticide application business, pub-lic service company or railroad company ROW applicationsare exempt from the notification requirements. Section 22a-66-7 of the General Statutes prohibits the aerial application ofpesticidal dusts within 100 feet of a public highway. And sec-tion 22a-54-1 prohibits the aerial application of broad-spec-trum chemical pesticides for nonagricultural purposes.

Iowa Administrative Code, section 21-45.50(4), requires posting notification signswhen a pesticide is applied to a public high-

way, road, street, alley, sidewalk or recreational trail ROWwithin the corporate limits of municipalities “in a mannerthat provides reasonable notice to the occupants of proper-ties immediately adjacent to the area being treated” (IAC 21-45.50(4) (1998)). Signs are to be posted at the end of eacharea treated. If the area is within a developed residential zone,signs are to be posted at both ends of each block. Public ROWenclosed by a chain link fence, noise wall or other structuresthat eliminate pedestrian access are exempt. The public mayrequest the pesticide application schedules and other right-to-know information from the licensed applicator.

Iowa Code, section 317.11, states that the county boards ofsupervisors and the state department of transportation are re-quired to control noxious weeds along roadsides under theirjurisdiction. The spraying of pesticides to control noxious weedsis only allowed “when it is not practical to mow or otherwisecontrol noxious weeds.”

Iowa Code, section 314.21, establishes a state fund thathelps counties in the state use and develop an Integrated Road-side Vegetation Management (IRVM) program. Iowa Code,section 314.22, establishes the development of an IRVM pro-gram for areas on or adjacent to roads, streets and highwayROWs through the state department of transportation. Theprogram is available for any county to adopt and implement.Forty-one out of ninety-nine counties are currently partici-pating in the IRVM program across the state.

Maine Board of Pesticides Control Regulations, sec-tion 01-026-51(IV), requires the licensed applicatorto provide information regarding a planned aerial pes-

ticide ROW application to the contracting entity. The con-tracting entity then prints the information in local newspa-pers. An “article/advertisement” of the ROW application mustbe published in a newspaper of general circulation betweenthree and 60 days prior to the application. If there is no news-paper of regular circulation in the area, individual notices toall landowners within 500 feet of the application site is given

instead. Notice, whether in newspaper or individual notices,must include a description of the target area, how to contactthe contracting entity, the intended purpose of the applica-tion, pesticide(s) to be used, date(s) of application, emergencytelephone numbers and any public precautions that appearon the pesticide label. Maine also requires posting notifica-tion signs at any point where the public can enter the treatedarea. The signs are to remain posted for at least 48 hours. Thesigns must state similar information as required for writtennotification in English and French.

Maine Board of Pesticides Control Regulations, section 01-026-22(5), states that an occupant of a sensitive area can re-quest to be notified of any pesticide application occurring within500 feet of that sensitive area. Sensitive areas include publicand private drinking water sources and all water bodies as wellas areas within 100 feet of residential, school, commercial ordeveloped recreational properties that are not the intended tar-get. The individual wanting prior notification must contact theperson responsible for the management of the land on which apesticide application will take place. Notification can be given“in any fashion, provided that it is effective in informing theperson” requesting such notification at least one day beforethe application commences. If the requesting individual is notsatisfied with notification provided, a complaint may be filedwith the Board which will then help resolve the agreement be-tween the two parties. Maine Board of Pesticide Control re-cently adopted a new chapter to its regulations, chapter 28,which establishes a pesticide notification registry. Notificationis given to any resident, upon request, by telephone, personalcontact or mail six hours to 14 days prior to an applicationmade within 250 feet of the registrant’s property.

Maine Pesticides Control Act, title 7 section 625 of theMaine Revised Statutes Annotated, states that any public utilityor Department of Transportation ROW can offer a no-sprayagreement for the municipality or individual to consider.Maine utility companies inform their customers of the no-spray agreement in bill-mailings. The Department of Trans-portation (DOT) provides signs to those that are adjacent toDOT ROWs requesting that the applicators do not spray theproperty adjacent to their property.

Massachusetts Code of Regulations, section11, prohibits the handling, mixing or load-ing of herbicide concentrate on a ROW within

100 feet of a sensitive area and the application of herbicidesby aircraft for the purpose of clearing or maintaining a ROW.Sensitive areas within a ROW area “in which public health,environmental or agricultural concerns warrant special pro-tection to further minimize risks of unreasonable adverse ef-fects” (333 CMR § 11.02 (1996)) and include an area withinthe primary recharge of a public well, within 400 feet of anysurface public water supply, and areas within 100 feet of aprivate water well, standing or flowing water, wetland or anyagricultural or inhabited area. Section 11.03(9) requires thedepartment to maintain a mailing list of individuals and groupswho want to receive notice “on various aspects of the Pro-


gram.” A Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) is required ofall applicants before treating ROWs. The VMP describes theintended program for vegetation control over a five-year pe-riod and must include “a description of Integrated Pest Man-agement Programs or other techniques/programs to minimizethe amount and frequency of herbicide application. Descrip-tion of alternative land use provisions or agreements that maybe established with individuals, state, federal or municipalagencies that would minimize the need for herbicide” (333CMR § 11.05(h), (i) (1996)). The department, once the VMPis received, will schedule and hold regional public hearingsfor all interested parties to comment on the proposed plan.Notice of the hearing is printed in regional newspapers andthe Environmental Monitor and includes where a copy of theVMP can be reviewed. There is a 45-day comment periodstarting when notice of the proposed plan is published. AYearly Operational Plan (YOP) describes the detailed veg-etation management operation for the year and is consis-tent with the terms of the VMP. A YOP notice is publishedin the Environmental Monitor and is distributed “to the ap-propriate mailing list.” The YOP also has a 45-day commentperiod. ROWs include “any roadway, or thoroughfare onwhich public passage is made and any corridor of land overwhich facilities such as railroads, power lines, pipelines,conduits, channels or communication lines are located” (333CMR § 11.02 (1996)).

Michigan Pesticide Use Regulation No. 637, sec-tion 285.637.11(5) of the Michigan Administra-tive Code, requires the commercial applicator

making a broadcast or foliar application to ROWs to provide

prior notification to occupants of property within the appli-cation target area. Property owners, their agents, or personsresiding within the application area are notified either by per-sonal contact, through an advertisement in the legal sectionof at least one local, general circulation newspaper or priorwritten notification. Written notification includes detailedinformation on the application with supplemental informa-tion available upon request.

Minnesota Statute, section 18B.063, requires thestate to “use integrated pest management techniquesin its management of public lands, including road-

side rights-of-way, parks, and forests; and shall use plantingregimes that minimize the need for pesticides and added nu-trients” (MINN. STAT. § 18B.063 (1998)). Department ofTransportation (Mn/DOT) has developed an “Integrated Road-side Vegetation Management Program” (IRVM) which fostersthe development of local IRVM programs and annual plans atthe local, district or maintenance area level within Mn/DOT.

New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules, section505.06, require applicators making a herbicide appli-cation to ROWs for power transmission and distribu-

tion lines, gas pipelines, railroads and public roads appliedbetween June and October 15 to give prior notification to thepublic. Notification is in newspapers and given directly toresidences within 200 feet of the ROW. Notification in news-papers must be once a week for two weeks in one newspaperof statewide circulation and in all local circulation papers.The second or last notice must be at least 45 days before theapplication begins. Notice includes information on the pro-posed application as well as how to receive more informa-

Striking a Deal with Utility CompaniesIn the summer of 1998, utility companies in North Carolina reached a private agreement with landowners regarding

management of their 75,000 miles of rights-of-way. The agreement, which does not have the force of state rules, was

sparked by complaints to the state pesticide board regarding North Carolina utility companies decision to begin broad-

cast spraying of their ROWs. Organic farmers and chemically sensitive people demanded the state pesticide board re-

quire the utilities to ask permission from landowners to spray herbicides on adjacent ROWs. The state pesticide board

asked the utilities and complainants to sit down together and come up with an agreement amongst themselves. The final

agreement accepted by all parties, with petitioners represented by the Agricultural Resources Center (ARC) [Carrboro,

NC], requires utilities to include inserts about their herbicide use in customer bills. The inserts include the names and

descriptions of the chemicals, how they are applied and sources for additional information about the applications. The

inserts do not disclose spray schedules. The agreement also gives state residents the right to refuse herbicide use on their

property and people can post their property with no spraying signs provided by the utilities. For those opting for no-

spray agreements, the utilities will still maintain the ROW by mechanical means without extra charge to the individual

landowner. Carolina Power & Light voluntarily sent notices to its customers in South Carolina regarding ROW herbicide

applications as well, reports ARC. Although this shows that such an agreement can be reached without government

involvement, the agreement is limited because it can not be enforced by state regulators. For more information contact

Allen Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main Street, Corrboro, NC 27510, (919) 967-1886, (919) 933-

4465 fax, [email protected].


tion. The newspaper notice must also include a cutout cou-pon for all abutting property owners to mail in to receive anindividual written notice 30 days before the treatment is tobegin. These companies will compile a permanent list for priornotification, to be maintained by the utilities. Mail-in cou-pon notification requests must be received 35 days prior tothe application, otherwise it become effective the followingyear. Direct notification of the residences within 200 feet ofthe right-of way treatment area is by certified mail or person-ally delivered and made at least 10 days before the applica-tion begins. Applications made to control poison ivy, in con-junction with landscape plantings on roadsides, upon road-way pavement, curbing and guardrails are exempt from theabove requirements.

New York State Department of Transportation(DOT) set up a toll-free number for residents tofind out about roadside spraying plans for their

areas. The state DOT started a demonstration project in thesummer of 1998 which tested the effectiveness of plantinglow-lying native flowers and grasses near highway guardrails.

Monroe County, New York opted in the summer of 1998to use welfare clients who are enrolled in the Work Experi-ence Program (WEP) to use mechanical methods to cut weedsalong county roads instead of using herbicides.

North Carolina Administrative Code,title 2, subchapter 9L, section .1005,states that no pesticides can be applied

by aircraft to public road ROW or within 25 feet of the road.The state Department of Transportation, although not legis-lated to do so, has developed an IPM policy which the de-partment recommends to people across the state for roadsidepest management

In a private agreement North Carolina utility companies, in-cluding Duke Power, Carolina Power & Light, North CarolinaPower, and Nantahala Power, agreed to provide private land-owners the right to be informed about pesticides used on theirROWs, opt out of the spray program and flag their property as ano-spray area. See side bar insert for additional information.

Oregon State Pesticide Control Act, section634.655 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, requiresstate agencies that have pest control responsibili-

ties to follow the principles of IPM, including the State Depart-ment of Agriculture, State Department of Fish and Wildlife,Department of Transportation, State Parks and Recreation De-partment, State Forestry Department, Department of Correc-tions, Oregon Division of Administrative Services and eachOregon institution of higher education, for the institution’s ownbuilding and grounds maintenance. A person is designatedfrom each agency to coordinate the IPM program for that agency.Each person responsible for pest management in each agencyis trained in IPM. The Department of Transportation districtIPM plans are open to the public for review. The Departmentof Transportation also provides no-spray agreements to land-owners that are adjacent to the road ROW.

Pennsylvania Pesticides Rules and Regulations,title 7 section 128.81 of the Pennsylvania Code,require prior notification for restricted use,

ground pesticide applications to ROWs. Notice must be pub-lished in two local newspapers of general circulation. An al-ternate to newspaper notices, the commercial or public ap-plicator may give notice orally or by certified mail to all abut-ting residents. An abutting resident may request, at least sevendays before the application is to begin, additional informa-tion, such as date and time of application, pesticide(s) to beapplied and a copy of the label(s), which will be provided atleast 12 hours before the application. Internal injections toutility poles and trees and ground line applications to utilitypoles are exempt from the notification requirement.

Pennsylvania Pesticides Rules and Regulations, title 7 sub-chapter F, provide a registry for people who have medical proofof their sensitivity to pesticides. People listed on the registry arenotified between 12 and 72 hours before any application within500 feet of their residence, place of employment, or school.

Vermont Regulations for Control of Pesticides, sectionIV(4), requires any person applying a pesticide to aROW to obtain a permit from the department and pro-

vide notification to the public. Twenty-five to 60 days priorto the application, information regarding the application mustbe printed once a week for two consecutive weeks in twolocal newspapers. Notice must also be made by one of thefollowing: a) three spot messages per day on two radio sta-tions in the area for two consecutive days during the two weekperiod prior to the application; b) mail notification to abut-ting residents at least two weeks prior to application; or c)personally delivered notification at least ten days prior to ap-plication. All permits require buffer zones around the watersof the state, each distance determined on a case by case basis.ROW includes property owned or leased by utilities for thepurpose of carrying, transmitting or transporting liquids,gases, electricity, communications, vehicles or people.

Vermont Public Service Board Rules, sections 3.620 to3.641, state the notification requirements for electric utilityROW’s pesticide applications and alternatives to such appli-cations. An owner or occupant within 1,000 feet of a utilityROW can request to be notified by mail between 30 and 60days before the commencement of the application. To do so,the owner or occupant must contact the utility company inwriting before May 15 of each year to request to be placed ona notification mailing list. If the utility company chooses, itcan place all residents of a town on its mailing list. Section3.621(F) of the Vermont Public Service Board Rules states that,“inadvertent failure to comply with [the above stated require-ments] shall not raise any presumption of negligence.” Everyyear the Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc (VELCO) is todevelop an information sheet stating general information onherbicide spraying of utility ROWs, how to contact utilities formore information and how to be placed on a notification mail-ing list. These information sheets are then distributed by the


utilities to their customers by May 1 of each year. This sameinformation is placed in newspapers once a week for fourweeks in April. Both the information sheet mailer and thenewspaper advertisement include a cutout coupon for per-sons to return to the utility requesting prior notification ofthe ROW application. If a utility ROW crosses a landowner’sproperty, the landowner cansend a written request to theutility to not use herbicidesto clear the traversed ROW.A $30 administrative fee ischarged for such herbicide-free requests.

WashingtonRevised Code,chapter 17.21,

section 400, requires a certi-fied applicator applying apesticide to a ROW to postnotice on each “power appli-cation apparatus” and havea copy of the pesticide’sMSDS. If the certified applicator receives a written request forinformation regarding the ROW treatment, the applicator mustprovide the requestor with the name of the pesticide(s) andthe MSDS, or the applicator may provide a department approvedfact sheet on the pesticide. Sections 13.21.420 and 13.21.430establish prior notification to anyone on abutting property whois on the department’s pesticide-sensitive registry. Enlistees musthave documented medical proof of a person’s sensitivity in or-der to be listed. For highway or road ROWs, this includes “thatportion of the property within one-half mile of the principalplace of residence” (RCW 17.21.420(2) (1998)). The list ex-pires at the end of every year and thus renewal is necessaryannually to be included. Notification to the abutting pesticide-sensitive registers must be made at least two hours prior to theapplication or if for an immediate service call, at the time ofthe application. Notification can be made by telephone, in writ-ing or in person, with the date and time of the application.

Washington Revised Code, section 17.15, requires stateagencies, including the Department of Agriculture, the StateNoxious weed Control Board, the Department of Ecology, theDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Trans-portation, the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Depart-ment of Natural Resources, the Department of Corrections,the Department of General Administration, and each stateinstitution of higher education, for the institution’s own build-ing and grounds maintenance, to follow the principles of IPM.Each state agency listed is required to have an IPM coordina-tor. In response to the findings of the state’s EnvironmentalImpact Statement for roadside vegetation management in1993, the Department of Transportation has developed anIntegrated Vegetation Management for Roadside guidebookwhich is intended to provide the individual crew maintenanceemployees with a reference and guidelines for the application

of IPM in the day to day work of highway maintenance. TheDepartment of Transportation offers no-spray agreementsthrough their local district offices.

West Virginia Legislative Rule, title 61 section12D, requires prior notification for aerial herbi-cide applications made to utility ROWs. Notifi-

cation, made in writingbetween 60 and 120 daysprior to the application, isgiven to “all news media”in the area to be treated,all persons in the sprayarea on the department’shypersensitivity registryand all property ownersand tenants abutting theproperty who have madea written request to theutility to be notified. No-tification includes generalinformation regarding theapplication. Herbicides

containing Picloram or Dicamba must not be applied by air-craft closer then 100 feet of public recreation areas, 150 feetof residential structures, 150 feet of barns and other outbuild-ings in use and 50 feet of roads. All other herbicides must notbe applied closer than 150 feet of public recreation areas, 100feet of residential structures, 150 feet of barns and other out-buildings in use and 50 feet from roads. Utility ROWs in-clude “those rights-of-way maintained by persons providingpublic service to the citizens of the state and may include butis not limited to electric companies, gas companies, commu-nication companies and railroads” (WVCSR tit 61 § 12D-2.1(effective 1992)).

ConclusionPeople have a right to be informed and protected from theunnecessary use of herbicides to which they are potentiallyexposed on nearby rights-of-way. In order to avoid exposureto the herbicides applied on ROWs, policies must require priornotification to nearby property, posting of signs, access to in-formation regarding the herbicides used, and the use of astrong IPM program in the management of ROWs.

This review is intended as an overview of states and locali-ties that are moving forward in their efforts to protect peoplefrom unintended exposure. Implementation and enforcementare absolutely critical. Although the many states listed in thisreview are exemplary in notification or in requiring integratedpest management, the states listed may be ineffective in pro-tecting the people near the ROWs. For more information onthe above discussed herbicide ROW policies and tools on how toorganize for the adoption of such policies at the state or locallevel, please contact Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP.

— Kagan Owens is information coordinatorat Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP.

In order to avoid exposure to the herbicides

applied on ROWs, policies must require prior

notification to nearby property, posting of

signs, access to information regarding the

herbicides used, and the use of a strong IPM

program in the management of ROWs.


Chemicals Found to AffectMale Reproductive System in New WayBy Hilary Melcarek

Toxicology and Industrial Health, Vol. 15, No. 1-2, 1999,with guest editor and World Wildlife Fund senior sci-entist, Theo Colborn, Ph.D., compiles studies on the

effects of pesticides on the male reproductive system, and findsthat some estrogen mimickers also have antiandrogenic (de-masculinizing) effects. As faras scientists understand rightnow, antiandrogenic effectscan take two forms: either areduction in the amount oftestosterone produced in thebody, or a replacement by thechemical in the cell’s recep-tor where a testosterone mol-ecule would normally go.This introduces a whole newconcern in that, up until now,scientists had found that cer-tain chemicals are feminizing— they act like estrogen and this too can affect the male re-productive system. These new findings however, show thatcertain chemicals actually demasculinize, and can affect spermcounts and the structure of the prostate, or cause delayedpuberty and extra nipples in males.

In “Environmental antiandrogens: low doses of the fungi-cide vinclozolin alter sexual differentiation of the male rat,”Earl Gray, Ph.D., (et al.) research biologist, EndocrinologyBranch of the Reproductive Toxicology Division, Office of Pes-

ticide Programs, EPA, found that malformations and reducedfertility were seen even at levels ten-fold smaller than levelsotherwise known to cause effects, suggesting that there is no“safe” threshold for exposure.

Another study, “Dieldrin reduces male production and sexratio in Daphnia,” by StanleyDodson, Ph.D.,(et al.) De-partment of Zoology, Univer-sity of Wisconsin in Madison,found that exposure to the in-secticide dieldrin causes a de-crease in the production ofmale Daphnia (water flea),which may have long-termecological effects.

In a piece co-authored byDr. Colborn, printed in theToxicology journal, it wasfound that 60% of the pound-

age of all agricultural herbicides has the potential to disruptthe hormone or reproductive system. Environmental MediaServices held a press breakfast in Washington DC on March23, 1999 to alert the media to these new findings. The fol-lowing excerpts from the above mentioned studies illustratethese findings. For a copy of the studies send $8 to Beyond Pes-ticides/NCAMP, or contact Amy Kostant, Environmental MediaServices, 1320 18th Street, NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20036,202-463-6670, [email protected].

Environmental antiandrogens:low doses of the fungicide vinclozolinalter sexual differentiation of the male ratL. Earl Gray Jr., Joseph Ostby,Emily Monosson and William KelceIntroductionThe fungicide vinclozolin (V) alters sexual differentiation inmale rats in an antiandrogenic manner. Vinclozolin isa dicarboximide fungicide used in the control ofBotrytis cinerea, Sclerotinia scierotiorum, andMoniliniam spp. on several fruits, vegetables, or-namental plants, and turfgrass. Administration ofV to pregnant rats at 0, 100, or 200 mg/kg/dayduring the period of sexual differentiation (ges-tational day 14 to postnatal day 3) demasculinizesand feminizes the male offspring. Vinclozolin-treated male offspring display female-likeanogenital distance (AGD) (distance from the anus to the geni-

tals) at birth, retained nipples, cleft phallus with hypospadias(urinary tract does not end at tip of penis), suprainguinalectopic testes (undescended testes), a blind vaginal pouch,epididymal granulomas, and small to absent sex accessoryglands. In contrast, female offspring display no malforma-tions or functional alterations.

Discussion: Environmental Antiandrogens: A ‘New’Class of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals

Recently, concern has developed regarding theeffects of these ‘endocrine disrupting’ toxi-cants on human reproductive function. Todate, most of the discussion of developmen-tal reproductive toxicity has focused on toxi-

cants reported to possess estrogenic activity, withlittle consideration given to other mechanisms of

toxicity. This focus must be expanded to include syn-thetic chemicals that act by competing with androgens for the

These new findings however, show that

certain chemicals actually demasculinize,

and can affect sperm counts and the

structure of the prostate, or cause delayed

puberty and extra nipples in males.


Androgen Receptor (AR). Antiandrogenic chemicals arenot only diverse in structure, some that bioaccumulatehave been found at high concentrations in wildlife andhuman tissues. Increases in the incidence of hypospa-dias and testicular cancer and reports of decliningsperm counts in humans in some geographical areashave been linked to possible exposure to endocrinedisruptors. It is apparent that in utero exposure to V in-duces some of these effects in the rat. It is likely thathuman males would be similarly affected if exposed tosimilar levels of the active metabolites of V during thecritical period of reproductive development in utero.

Dieldrin reduces male productionand sex ratio in Daphnia galeata mendotaeStanley I. Dodson, Chritine M. Merritt,laura Torrentera, Katherine M. Winter,Christopher K. Tornehl and Kristin GirvinDiscussion: Aquatic EcologyChemicals that change Daphnia development or reproduc-tion are clearly of ecological concern. Daphnia are ecologi-cally important algae-consumers and fish-food in lakes all overthe world. In particular, a decreasein the number of males has the po-tential of reducing Daphnia’s eco-logical success over many genera-tions, because the genetic recom-bination associated with sexual re-production allows a population toadapt to on-going environmentalchange. Any chemical that inter-feres with normal Daphnia produc-tion will also have indirect effectson water quality and fish produc-tion. Changes in water quality andfish production are also of concernfor human health and well-being.

Pesticide use in the U.S.and policy implications:A focus on herbicidesPolly Short and Theo ColbornIntroductionExposure to several herbicides, which have been in use fordecades, has been associated with a range of adverse effectsin humans, such as impaired development, non-Hodgkin’slymphoma, and prostate cancer. Others are suspectedneurotoxicants, endocrine disruptors, and immune systemsuppressants. New herbicides have been introduced in partto replace older ones known to have adverse effects. How-ever, little is known about the health effects of these modernherbicides, many of which have been in use only since thelate 1980s and early 1990s. Although some herbicides maynot harm animals, they can damage non-target plant species,altering biodiversity and indirectly affecting wildlife.

Global pesticide use trends and regulationsPesticide Additives: Pesticide additives, often calledinert ingredients, can be toxic. In fact, some chemi-cals are listed as an unidentified inert in one prod-uct, but are the active ingredient (AI) in anotherproduct. At least 394 inert ingredients have been orare currently registered as pesticidal AIs. Although

a chemical may make up more than 90% of one prod-uct as an inert, it does not have to be identified by

name as long as it is not highly toxic or technically the “kill-ing agent.” Only the total percentage of inert ingredients mustbe declared on the label. The EPA has long acknowledged thatsome inerts “may be more toxic or pose greater risks than theactive ingredient.”

DiscussionFive hundred and fifty-six million pounds of herbicide activeingredients were used in the U.S. in 1995, equaling over 2lbs. per person and covering many regions of the country.Over 60% of all agricultural herbicides used in the U.S. arereported to disrupt the endocrine and/or reproductive sys-tems of animals. These herbicides covered roughly 271 mil-

lion acres of agricultural land, anarea comprising 12% of theUnited States.

No new chemicals should beregistered for use unless there isconclusive evidence that they donot cause unreasonable adverseeffects on human, wildlife, andecosystem health and there aretechnologies to detect the chemi-cals after they are released intothe environment. Pesticide use re-duction is also essential in orderto slow the influx of chemicals inthe environment. It has been es-timated that pesticide use can beconsiderably reduced through anadoption of alternative tech-niques, such as integrated pestmanagement, without reducing

crop yields. Pesticide use reduction would diminish the indi-rect costs of pesticide use, such as pesticide poisonings, de-struction of susceptible crops and natural vegetation, fisheryand wildlife losses, evolved pesticide resistance, creation ofsecondary pest problems, etc.

Some alligators in Florida have failed to developsexually because pesticides and other toxics in theenvironment behave like hormones and disrupt normalpatterns of growth and behavior.

Hilary Melcarek isBeyond Pesticides/

NCAMP’s InformationAssistant


A R E V I E W O F

The Poisoning of Public Thoroughfares:How Herbicides Blight California’s Roadsby Patty Clary, executive director, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, Spring 1999.

By Hilary Melcarek

This new report written by Californians for Alternativesto Toxics (CATs), a leader in the successful Californiaanti-spray campaign, explains the problems associated

with spraying herbicides for weed control on California road-sides by the California Department of Transportation(Caltrans), and how the massive agency has failed to stopexcessive spraying, despite promises to do so. A group of ac-tivists has effectively stopped roadside herbicide applicationsin Trinity, Humboldt, and Mendocino Counties in District 1and Alpine County in District 10. They are now working toprevent spraying in the remainder of the state. According tothe report, Caltrans has issued Environmental Impact State-ments promising to lessen the use of toxic herbicides and tostop spraying weeds solely for the sake of appearances. Al-though their proposals look good on paper, Caltrans consis-tently has not followed through, according to CATs. Caltranshas also promised to avoid herbicide spraying within 100 feetof children’s bus stops, though the agency has neglected toidentify where they are located. A pledge made in 1992 toreduce its use of herbicides by 50% by the year 2000 is un-likely to be met by Caltrans, despite millions of dollars spenton research studies, says the report.

Caltrans serves as a model for much smaller county roadagencies throughout the state, yet has failed to act as a re-sponsible state agency, says the report. According to CATs,most of Caltrans’ twelve district offices could not provide abasic summary of their use of toxic herbicides. CAT saysCaltrans officials are not sure how much the agency spendson herbicides — annual expenditures can only be estimatedat $4 to $6 million for weed killing chemicals.

The report also illustrates how roadside vegetation prob-lems can be managed by using non-toxic alternatives whilestaying well within state budget requirements. Alternativesinclude planting flowers, integrated vegetation management(IVM), or using natural herbicides.

The following summaries and excerpts from The Poisoningof Toxic Thoroughfares adequately illustrate Caltran’s incon-sistencies.

CaltransAs required by the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), all districts of California must compose an annualplan that describes in detail how roadside vegetation is man-aged under their jurisdiction. The plans are meant to be ac-

cessible to the public and regulatory agencies, but are so com-plicated that it is unlikely even herbicide applicators will beable to follow them when out spraying, says the report. Diffi-culty may also arise when trying to obtain such information.

The annual vegetation control plan issued by Districts 1and 2 maintenance managers includes a delineated sum-mary of chemical herbicide use, as it is required underCEQA. None of the other ten Caltrans district offices couldproduce a similar report, taking up to seven months beforefurnishing the legally required summary.

Other District offices delayed providing information andwhen finally compelled to do so also revealed their incom-prehension of public record law. District 6 officials waitedfive months to reply to an initial informational request,then insisted that supplying the data would cost $500. Theworst response time was logged by employees of District 7who dragged their feet for seven months before giving theinformation that was requested.

Oftentimes, Caltrans removes roadside weeds with toxicherbicides just to establish “clean” roadways. This, they claim,is to ensure the safety of travelers. According to Caltrans, theremoval of weeds to heighten visibility of signs and other ve-hicles is key in preventing car accidents and loss of property.

Vegetation management activities cost Caltrans well inexcess of $23.5 million each year. Some of their weed con-trol directives are explicit, such as when engineering speci-fication mandate that bridges and culverts be kept free of

Photo credit: Californians for Alternative to T

oxics


plant growth. State and federal laws also require that cer-tain plants considered noxious weeds be eliminated beforethey spread to adjacent fields. Far more equivocal, how-ever, are decisions about how a road should look. Theseare based on highly subjective and debatable opinions.

It’s the safety of the road-driving public and their own em-ployees that is the most important determining factor, claimroad agencies. They cite their formidable responsibility ofpreventing car accidents and loss of property by preserv-ing on-the-road visibility of other vehicles and signs. Theymust keep paving intact, provide rapid drainage, and pre-vent fires, all of which, they say, can’t be done without her-bicides.

California’s use of roadsideherbicides is widespreadAccording to The Poisoning of Public Thoroughfares, Caltransand county road agencies apply more than 132,000 gallons ofliquid herbicides and 93,000 pounds of dry herbicides on road-sides in a typicalyear. In its study,CATs found thatCaltrans applies anaverage of five gal-lons of liquid andtwo or morepounds of dry her-bicides per road-mile to the 15,000miles of highwaysunder its jurisdic-tion. Additionally,the report foundthat “51 of thestate’s 58 countygovernments alsorely on chemicalpoisons to killweeds, averagingmore than onepound and one gallon of herbicide per mile along the 64,000miles of roads under county management.”

Pollution Effects: Water, Air, and Soil

WaterThe California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) hasconducted annual studies on California water sources, whichhave found that the same herbicides, year after year, contami-nate well water.

Herbicide leachers were first found polluting the state’sground water a decade ago. The most popular herbicide usedby public road agencies is still diuron, which has been foundin many wells each year since sampling began fourteen years

ago. Bromacil and simazine – two other top roadside defoli-ants – have also been found in water samples. Norflurazon,the state’s third most popular roadside herbicide, was just de-tected for the first time in 9.5% of wells in 1997. This is be-cause it was commonly not anticipated to pollute ground waterand consequently on a low-priority sampling list.

Some roadside chemicals that are considered non-leach-ing herbicides, such as glyphosate and oryzalin, are actuallyvery likely to wash away with rainwater and pollute surfacewaters, says the study. California, however, neither samplesnor tests roadside surface water for glyphosate, oryzalin, orany of the herbicides sprayed along public roads.

AirRoadside herbicides are also known to drift and evaporate,causing air pollution, says the study. Although inhalation isthe pathway of greatest exposure to the millions of peopletraveling on California roadways, Caltrans neglected to studydrift exposures in its 1992 risk assessment on roadside chemi-cals. Caltrans commonly uses chemicals known to cause drift,such as glyphosate. “14% to 78% of glyphosate has been foundto drift away from the sprayed target, and glyphosate resi-dues have been detected up to 1,300 feet from where it wasapplied,” says the report.

Photo credit: Californians for Alternative to T

oxics

Californians for Alternative to T

oxics


SoilOf the top eight herbicides used by Caltrans, half are highlypersistent in soils, while the others are “moderately long last-ing.” Exposure may occur when chemicals clinging to dustparticles are absorbed or inhaled. However, Caltrans has notstudied the effects of herbicide spraying on roadside soil oron the pollution level of dust.

The Chemically SensitiveExposure to pesticides along roadways can be particularlythreatening to those with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities(MCS). Travel on public roads can be extremely hazardous tothis group of people, because contact with herbicides can trig-ger illness or even life threatening reactions. The actions ofgovernment agencies that use toxic chemicals threaten thehealth of many members of the public.

. . . a recent survey conducted by the state Department ofHealth Services found that of adult Californians, 16.9%— or as many as four million people – believe that theydisplay symptoms of sensitivity to chemicals. Of these,6.4%, or as many a 1.5 million people, have been medi-cally diagnosed with MCS. This means that one in six adulttravelers could be especially sensitive to the adverse healtheffects of roadside spraying.

Children at RiskCaltrans is making very little effort to avoid applying herbicidesto areas where children walk and catch school buses, despite

promises to do so, says CATs. Children are especially susceptibleto toxic effects from pesticide exposure due to their size, devel-oping tissues, and lower ability to metabolize toxins.

The chances that children may be exposed to the harmfulchemicals applied by these agencies are enormous. Of15,000 miles of highway maintained by Caltrans, almosttwo-thirds are sprinkled with school bus stops. Many morebus stops are located along the 64,000 miles of roads main-tained by country agencies. Making matters worse, chemi-cal weed control for both Caltrans and county roads is con-centrated in the months from October through April, whilechildren are attending school.

The road agencies claim they try to avoid spraying wheresigns indicate bus stops on unknown areas of heavy foottraffic. Caltrans even acknowledged its obligation to pro-tect children in its 1992 Environmental Impact Statementon roadside vegetation control, when it pledged to “not ap-ply chemicals within 100 feet of school bus stops identifiedby public school districts” and to develop guidelines to“modify or exclude chemicals on roadsides where childrenwalk to school.”

However, few, if any, of the road agencies actively pursueinformation about the location of school bus stops or areaswhere children walk so that applicators will know whereto avoid using herbicides.

Alternatives to SprayingThere are many viable alternatives to herbicide spraying forCalifornias roadside weeds, says CATs. These alternatives arenot more expensive than herbicide applications, and areoftentimes less expensive. Some alternatives, as listed in thereport, include dry steam, preferred vegetation planting, In-tegrated Vegetation Management (IVM), and the use of or-ganic mulches. Wildflower plantings can out-compete road-side weeds, while IVM uses monitoring to determine whethervegetated areas require maintenance. Organic mulches con-taining corn gluten, a set of two amino acids found in thegerm of the corn seed, act as natural herbicides by preventingroot systems from developing from seeds.

ConclusionThe Poisoning of Toxic Thoroughfares documents Caltrans’ ex-tensive inconsistencies in implementing their proposed policyas stated in their 1992 Environmental Impact Statement.Caltrans is consequently putting the public at risk while fail-ing to provide people with the information they need, suchas when spraying will occur and what herbicides will be used.Travelers on California public roads are unaware of the dan-gers they face from exposure to toxic herbicides, and are thusunable to protect themselves accordingly. For a copy, send $14(ppd) to CATs, P.O. Box 1195, Arcata, California 95518, 707-822-8497, [email protected].

Photo by Michael Am

sler

Resources


The Organic CottonBriefing Kit andOrganic CottonDirectory 1998-1999

(Pesticide Ac-tion NetworkNorth Americaand the Or-ganic TradeAssociation’sFiber Council,1998). Thiscollaborativeproject of theOrganic Trade

Association’s Fiber Council (OFC) andPesticide Action Network North America(PANNA) illustrates the recent growthof the organic cotton industry. Becauseof growing concern for the environmentand awareness of the extremely largeamounts of highly toxic pesticides usedin conventional cotton agriculture, manyfarmers have been switching to organicmethods for producing the fiber. Morecompanies and retail stores are also de-voting themselves to selling only organiccotton materials. PANNA’s Organic Cot-ton Briefing Kit includes factsheets onenvironmental and social degradationassociated with conventional cotton ag-riculture and genetically engineered cot-ton, such as high pesticide poisoningrates of cotton farmworkers, groundwa-ter contamination from pesticide runoff,and increasing resistance of cotton pests.The kit additionally cites U.S. organiccotton farming success stories and is akey tool for PANNA’s “Switch to OrganicCampaign.” Included in the kit isPANNA’s and OFC’s collaborative OrganicCotton Directory, which lists organic cot-ton farmers, brokers, merchants, supportorganizations, mills, companies, and re-tail stores around the nation and world.The directory is a valuable tool for start-ing an organic cotton company or farm,or for purchasing organic cotton items.For a copy of the Organic Cotton BriefingKit and Organic Cotton Directory, send $15

to PANNA, 49 Powell St. #500, San Fran-cisco, CA 94102, 415- 981-1771,[email protected].

Farms of TomorrowRevisited; CommunitySupported Farms —Farm SupportedCommunities

Trauger Groh& StevenM c F a d d e n .(The Biody-namic Farm-ing and Gar-dening Asso-ciation, Inc.,1997). Sevenyears after thepublication ofFarms of To-

morrow, this new edition revisits manyof the same concepts of Community Sup-ported Agriculture (CSA) and biody-namic farming. Through a series of es-says, Groh and McFadden state the needfor a new type of agriculture, one thattakes into account ecology and nature.First and foremost, Farms of TomorrowRevisited states the need for a switch toorganic farming and a stop to the addi-tion of artificial inputs, such as petro-leum based pesticides and fertilizers, intothe soil and farm system. New essaythemes include the economic, spiritualand legal questions faced by CSA; thedevelopment of communities; the role ofanimals; and observations of farm-mem-ber families. Farms of Tomorrow Revisitedstresses the need for a human and com-munity connection with nature and foodgrown for human consumption. An un-derlying aspect of CSA is the respect thatgrows from this connection. The booklooks for a switch from global, industrialand artificial input-based agriculture tosmaller, increasingly self-sufficient andecological CSAs. In the back of the bookare examples of community farms across

the country, some of which appeared inthe original Farms of Tomorrow, and someof which are new. Farms that were pre-viously reported on have had their oftenphenomenal development re-docu-mented. This book is ideal for those in-terested in biodynamic farming and CSA,as well as those either searching for a CSAin their area or wishing to start up theirown. For a copy, send $21.00(ppd) to TheWisdom Conservancy at Merriam Hill Edu-cation Center, 148 Merriam Hill,Greenville, NH 03048, or call ChelseaGreen, Inc., 800-639-4099.

Pest Control Practicesin ConnecticutPublic Schools

( E n v i r o n -ment and Hu-man Health,Inc., 1999).To identifypesticide usepatterns inConnecticutp u b l i cschools, Envi-ronment andH u m a n

Health, Inc. conducted a survey of 150schools in CT school districts. The studyfound that CT public schools spray toxicchemicals both indoors and outdoors,sometimes without any prior notificationgiven to parents and staff, and withoutrecords regarding past applications. Chil-dren are additionally allowed to bepresent in schools while pesticide appli-cations are taking place, and manyschools spray on a routine schedule in-stead of monitoring for pests and spray-ing only when needed. Beyond Pesti-cides/NCAMP board member JohnWargo, Ph.D., School of Forestry andEnvironmental Studies, Yale University,is a primary author of the study.

Data was gathered for the study fromthe 77 Connecticut schools that re-sponded to the survey (52% of total).

Resources


From Department of Education data, thestudy’s authors calculated that 116,218children attend schools in CT that rou-tinely spray pesticides, while 12,860 chil-dren attend schools where no pesticideshave been applied in the past year.

The study’s discussion briefly over-views children’s special susceptibility toadverse effects from environmental tox-ins, the shortcomings of the federalgovernment’s risk assessment process,and how pesticide poisoning symptomsare commonly misdiagnosed by doctors.The report identifies safe solutions topest control problems in Connecticutschools, offers suggestions to parents andothers as to what can be done to protectchildren and staff from pesticide expo-sures in school, and recommends poli-cies that the state should adopt. For acopy (24pp), send $2 (ppd) to Environmentand Human Health, Inc., 1191 Ridge Road,North Haven, CT 06473, 203-248-6582.

Flyers Beware: PesticideUse on Internationaland U.S. DomesticAircraft and Flights

Becky Riley(NorthwestCoalition forAlternativesto Pesticides,D e c e m b e r1998). Thisreport re-leased by theN o r t h w e s tCoalition for

Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) findsthat pesticides containing active ingredi-ents such as permethrin, resmethrin, andd-phenothrin are commonly sprayed onboth cargo planes and passenger aircraftin the U.S. and in other countries. Pesti-cides sprayed in passenger cabins aresometimes long lasting, residual insecti-cides, says Flyers Beware. The pesticidesare sprayed by airline personnel or com-

mercial pest control companies, eithervoluntarily by the airline or to complywith U.S. regulations and requirements ofother countries. Which countries require“disinsection” to kill “stow away” insectsare also listed in the report. Pesticides aresprayed on regularly scheduled mainte-nance procedures in cargo holds, unoc-cupied or occupied passenger cabins, gal-leys, and cockpits, says the study.

The study notes that airline air qual-ity is already very poor due to lack ofadequate ventilation and restrictions onfresh air intake during flights. Accord-ing to the study, up to 50% of the air inpassenger cabins is recycled. Flyers Be-ware explains health hazards associatedwith pesticide spraying on airplanes, es-pecially for infants, children, pregnantwomen, asthmatics, cancer patients andother sensitive individuals. In the study,NCAP urges passengers who wish toknow if pesticides will be sprayed on aparticular flight to contact the airlinedirectly and ask about both discretion-ary and required spraying. The publica-tion can also guide future passengers topeople at specific airlines knowledgeableabout pesticides spray practices. For acopy of the study send $4.00 (ppd) to NCAP,P.O. Box 1393, Eugene, OR 97440, 541-344-5044 or see www.efn.org/~ncap/.

The Organic RevolutionJoel Bourne( A u d u b o n ,March-April1 9 9 9 ) .A u d u b o nMagazine hasbrought the is-sues of organicfarming andintegrated pestmanagement

(IPM) to the public’s attention with this spe-cial report, The Organic Revolution, in itsMarch-April, 1999 issue. Pesticides in con-ventional farming systems have affected en-vironmental and human health drasticallysince their widespread use beginning in the

1950s. Pesticides have been implicated innumerous cases of wildlife deformities, suchas shrunken reproductive organs in Floridaalligators and malformed legs and eyes infrog populations around the country, whileit is estimated that 300,000 farmworkers willbe poisoned by pesticide exposures this sea-son. Many farmers are responding byswitching to safer, organic methods, suchas crop rotations to prevent persistent soildiseases, mulching to suppress weeds, andthe use of beneficial insects to control pests,says the report.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA) released its first draft proposal tobring organic labeling under federal lawin December 1997. Much to organic farm-ers’ and the National Organic StandardsBoard’s (NOSB) disdain, the draft left openthe possibility of using irradiation, sewagesludge, and genetically engineered cropsin organic food production. The studystates the problems associated with thesemethods. These include the toxic chemi-cals and heavy metals commonly found insewage sludge and how genetically engi-neered crops can lead to a higher depen-dence on pesticides and increasing pest re-sistance. After the release of their draft pro-posal, the USDA was deluged with 280,000public comments, causing Secretary ofAgriculture Dan Glickman to drop the pro-posed standards.

According to the Organic Revolution,industry giants, such as Campbell Soup,Del Monte, and Woodbridge Winery areadopting innovative IPM practices. In1993, the Clinton Administration set agoal of putting 75 percent of U.S. farm-land under IPM by the year 2000. Un-fortunately, response has been slow. “Weare making progress,” says Deputy Sec-retary of Agriculture Richard Rominger,the agency’s point man on the project.“Unfortunately, we haven’t got the fundswe need from Congress. IPM is the wayto go. We need to encourage research tomake the tools available to farmers.” Fora copy, send $2.00 ppd to Beyond Pesti-cides/NCAMP. The report is in the March-April issue of Audubon, which is availableon magazine racks.

NCAMP MEMBERSHIP & SUBSCRIPTIONS

❏ YES, make me a member of NCAMP (includes subscription to Pesticides & You).❏ $25 Individual ❏ $30 Family ❏ $50 Public Interest Organizations ❏ $15 Limited Income

❏ YES, I’d like to subscribe to Pesticides & You.❏ $25 Individual ❏ $50 Government ❏ $100 Corporate

❏ YES, I’d like to receive NCAMP’s monthly Technical Report. $20 with membership or subscription.If outside the United States, please add $10.00 each for memberships and subscriptions.

R E S O U R C E ST-Shirts❏ “Pollution Prevention Is the Cure.” full color graphic on 100% natural organic

cotton Beneficial-T’s by Patagonia™ T-shirt. $18 each; two for $30.❏ “Speak to the Earth, and It Shall Teach Thee.” In green, blue and peach on

100% natural organic cotton. $15 each; two for $25.❏ Tell the world that FREEDOM FROM PESTICIDES IS EVERY BODY’S RIGHT in teal,

purple, and yellow. On 100% natural organic cotton. $15 each; two for $25.Bumper Sticker❏ “Is Your Lawn Toxic Green?” White letters on green background.❏ FREEDOM FROM PESTICIDES IS EVERY BODY’S RIGHT. White letters on blue.

Stickers $2.00 each ($.50 each when ordering 100+)Books❏ A Failure to Protect. Landmark study of federal government pesticide use and

pest management practices. $23.00. Summary and Overview $5.00.❏ The Chemical-Free Lawn: The newest varieties and techniques to grow lush,

hardy grass with no pesticides no herbicides, no chemical fertilizers. By WarrenSchultz. Published by Rodale Press. $17.95 (14.95 + $3.00 shipping).

❏ Unnecessary Risks: The Benefit Side of the Risk-Benefit Equation.Understand how the EPA’s Risk-Benefit Analyses falsely assume the need forhigh-risk pesticides. Explains how “benefits” are inflated, how alternativesmight be assessed, and the public’s right to ask more from its regulators. $10.00.

❏ Safety at Home: A Guide to the Hazards of Lawn andGarden Pesticides and Safer Ways to Manage Pests.Learn more about: the toxicity of common pesticides; non-toxic lawn care; whycurrent laws offer inadequate protection. $11.00

❏ Voices for Pesticide Reform: The Case for Safe Practices and Sound Policy. Newstudy documenting stories of tragic pesticide poisoning and contamination, andsuccessfully used alternatives that avoid toxic chemicals. $20.00

❏ Poison Poles: Their Toxic Trail and the Safer Alternatives. New study on largestgroup of pesticides, wood preservatives, and contamination associated withtreated wood utility poles, and the availability of alternatives. $22.00

Back Issues❏ Back issues of Pesticides and You $2.00 each❏ Back issues of Technical Reports $1.00 eachBrochures ($2.00 each; bulk discounts available)

❏ Pest Control Without Toxic Chemicals❏ Least Toxic Control of Lawn Pests❏ Agriculture: Soil Erosion, Pesticides, Sustainability❏ Organic Gardening: Sowing the Seeds of Safety❏ Estrogenic Pesticides❏ Pesticides and Your Fruits and Vegetables❏ Pesticides: Are you being poisoned without your knowledge?❏ Pesticides in Our Homes and SchoolsTestimony❏ Children & Pesticides, 9/13/90 $4.00❏ Lawn Care Chemicals, 5/9/91 $4.00❏ FIFRA - Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 6/8/93 $4.00❏ Food Safety, 8/2/93 $3.00❏ National Organic Standards Board, 10/13/94 $4.00❏ Food Quality Protection Act, 6/7/95 $4.00❏ Parents: Right-to-Know-Schools, 3/19/97 $3.00Other❏ Getting Pesticides Out of Food and Food Production $5.00❏ NCAMP’s Pesticide Chemical FactSheets; individual: $2.00, book: $20.00❏ Least Toxic Control of Pests Factsheets $6.00❏ Community Organizing Toolkit $12.00❏ Model Pesticide Ordinance $5.00❏ Pesticides and Schools: A Collection of Issues and Articles $15.00

Method of Payment: ❏ Check or money order ❏ VISA/Mastercard # ___________________________ Expiration Date: ________

Name Phone Fax Email

Title (if any) Organization (if any)

Street City State Zip

Quantity Item Description (for T-shirts, please note size S,M,L,XL) Unit Price Total

MEMBERSHIP

Mail to: Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP, 701 E Street SE, Washington, DC 20003 Tax-Deductible Donation: ____________

Total Enclosed: ____________Vol. 19, No. 1, 1999

Non-Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDSilver Spring, MDPermit No. 1400

Pesticides and YouBeyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides701 E Street SE, Suite 200Washington, DC 20003202-543-5450

Printed with soy inkon recycled paper

Vol. 19, No. 1a member of Earth Share SM

COMPLIMENTARY COPY

Please Subscribe!

Pick up your new limited editionBeyond Pesticides/NCAMP T-shirt

Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’s new

limited edition Beyond Pesticides:

Pollution Prevention Is the Cure

T-shirt is something you’ll want to

have because it’s beautiful and you

can show your support for Beyond

Pesticides/NCAMP. Graphics are in

full color, printed on an all-natural,

100% organic Beneficial-T’s by

Patagonia™ T-shirt. $18 ppd.

Pollu

tion

Prevention Is the Cure

Beyond Pesticides

Natinal Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

701 E Street, SE, Washington, DC 20003

And if you do not have Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’s Freedom From Pesticides isEvery Body’sRight T-shirt, you can pick one of those up too. $15 ppd.

T-shirts providedin part by

volume 19 , number 1 spring 1999 pesticides and you · 2012. 4. 30. · their present pest control...

Documents