A Case for the Phase out of Pesticides



A Case for the Phase-out of Pesticides

On Troy Municipal Properties

Prepared by:

Lindsay Charniga,

Bobbi Chase,

Mark Dunlea

Brian Moran and

Gina Tartamosa

Green City Project

Environmental Politics and Policy

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

October 2000

Table of Contents

I. Introduction 1

II. The Problems with Pesticides 2

III. The Alternatives to pesticides 3

A. Green Golf Courses 3

B. In Buildings 3

IV. Pesticide Phase-out Legislation 4

V. Financial and Technical Assistance 5

VI. Conclusion 6

VII. Appendix

A. Proposed Pesticide Phase-out Legislation 7

B. Frequently Asked Questions 9

C. Effects of Pesticides Used at Frear Park Golf Course 10

D. Important Facts About Golf Course Pesticide Use 11

Introduction

Today, pesticides are used everywhere. These often toxic chemicals can be found in large amounts in homes, public buildings such as day care centers and schools, on lawns and play fields, and on agricultural crops. A report published by Environmental Advocates and the New York Public Interest Research Group reveals the extent of the problem. New York State farmers and commercial applicators used 16.7 million pounds and 2.4 million gallons of pesticides in 1997 alone. “Over a third of the total known pesticide products used statewide contain active ingredients classified as known, probable, likely, or possible carcinogens by the United States Environmental Protection Agency” (“Plagued by Pesticides,” 1998, p. ii).

Sometimes the use of pesticides is necessary when no other alternative exists, or in cases of extreme outbreaks of disease. As the above statistics reveal, in general pesticides are applied excessively as an easy solution. However, pest-control research and public health studies have demonstrated that indiscriminant application of chemicals to control pests is not the best method for several reasons. Many pesticides are carcinogenic and/or toxic to birds, fish, and people, not just insects and weeds. Applications of pesticides are only solutions to the symptoms of pest infestations, not corrections of the underlying causes.

Out of concern for environmental and public health, and in recognition of effective preventative measures, many communities across the United States are implementing pesticide phase-out legislation, which incorporates prevention and use of least-toxic pesticides. The program is designed to eliminate the use of toxic pesticides on municipal property over a time period of several years.

We believe it is important for the City of Troy to pass legislation to implement such a pesticide phase-out program. It is the healthy choice, one that protects people, plants and animals, and one that demonstrates the leadership and caring on the part of the City of Troy. By phasing out pesticides on municipal property, Troy would demonstrate that it is possible to have both pesticide-free and pest-free communities. By educating Troy residents that alternatives to pesticides exist, the City of Troy can encourage pest prevention and least-toxic methods of pest control for residents and build positive support for the city.

II. The Problem with Pesticides

Pesticides that are used to kill insects and weeds also harm other animals and plants, including humans. In Troy, the main location of pesticide application is the golf course in Frear Park. The City would need to conduct an inventory to identify other uses of pesticides on municipal property.

There are five pesticides used in Frear Park: Banner Maxx, Bayleton, Chipco 26, Daconil, and Rubigan. All of these are fungicides[1]. Three of the five, Chipco 26019, Daconil 2787, and Bayleton, and their respective active ingredients, Iprodione, Chlorothalonil and Triadimefon, are probable or possible human carcinogens. In addition to being cancer-causing, they have low to medium acute and/or chronic toxicity effects which can harm the liver, nervous system and kidneys in humans. They also pose threat of harm to fish and birds. (See Appendix D for further details.) Rubigan has also been shown to be toxic to fish and should not be allowed into water supplies.

Many studies have shown that there is a higher occurrence of cancer in professional golfers and in golf course superintendents. Statistics show golf course superintendents with a higher number of deaths due to lung cancer, as well as brain cancer and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (“Mortality Study Among Golf Course Superintendents,” 1994).

Many people use Frear Park for purposes other than golfing. People use it for jogging and walking, and children play and couples picnic there. Given the toxicity of the above pesticides, one can safely say that these are not chemicals that should be used on the Frear Park golf course. Additional concerns arise because of the potential to pollute the ponds and air in the communities near the park. When too much is sprayed, there is also a possibility that the residues can end up in nearby homes and gardens, and in people’s clothes and on their pets. Hence, discontinuing the use of the pesticides mentioned above (and any others for that matter) is a very important and healthy decision for everyone involved, including the applicators themselves.

Alternatives To Pesticides

To demonstrate the broad range of alternatives to the use of pesticides, outlined below are some alternative methods of treating golf courses and buildings. A search on the web search engine AltaVista for “Alternatives to Pesticides” found over 100 websites on this subject. The information below is just a small portion of the methods available. The Capital Region is also fortunate to have the New York Committee for Alternatives to Pesticides (NYCAP) within its community. This organization has tremendous resources on alternatives.

Green Golf Courses

There are many ways to create a golf course that is attractive to golfers without applying toxic chemicals. The following are just a few suggestions to demonstrate the variety of choices.

Species Cultivar Selection: Turf grasses must be selected that match local environmental and playing conditions in order to help prevent susceptibility to pests and stresses.

Mowing Practices: Often courses are cut too often and too short making the turf grasses less resistant to pests and stresses.

Fertility and pH Management: Slow release fertilizers such as IBDU, sulfur coated urea, or natural organic materials, should be used on golf courses wherever possible.

Pest Forecasting Techniques and Equipment: Golf course superintendents now have access to forecasting tools to detect potential pest problems in advance. Also, diagnostic kits are available to provide fast disease detection and monitoring.

Alternative Pest Control Measures: Biological controls regulate pests by introducing natural enemies to the turf environment to combat turf pathogens.

Fungicidal Bacteria: There are bacteria sold commercially that help reduce undesired fungi on the course. One example( is sold by the company EcoSoil in a system that injects the bacteria into irrigation systems to eliminate the need for additional staff to spray or inject fungicide.

In Buildings

When pesticides are applied inside buildings, there is a greater likelihood that they will persist and people living in the building or using it could be exposed for a prolonged basis. To prevent pests from taking up residence in a building, or to get rid of them when they do appear, here are some simple suggestions for pesticide-free pest control.

Be sure to seal the building well – eliminate cracks through which insects could enter. The three main things pests look for indoors are food, shelter and water. By thinking in those terms, one can reduce these enticements and reduce the chances of an initial infestation.

There are various approaches to respond to particular pests. For instance, for ants pour a line of cream of tartar, red chili pepper, paprika or dried peppermint leaves at the place where they enter the house. To keep away roaches, set out a dish containing equal parts baking soda and powdered sugar, or equal parts oatmeal flour and plaster of paris. Place bay leaves around the cracks in the room. Spread boric acid powder around infested areas. (This information was taken from the website for the Air and Waste Management Association, awma/educate/outreach/ whatcan/pests.htm.)

III. Pesticide Phase-out Legislation for Troy

Troy should take a leadership role to protect the plants, animals and people of Troy from unnecessary exposure to toxic chemicals by passing legislation that would phase out their use on municipal property.

The proposed legislation is very simple. It calls for a three-year process which begins by eliminating the most toxic pesticides first – those categorized as Toxicity Category 1 by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and known, likely, or probable human carcinogens; most municipalities to do not use pesticides in the Toxic I category. In the second year, Toxicity Category II pesticides and those classified as possible human carcinogens would be eliminated, and in the third year all toxic pesticides would be removed.

The legislation does include various exemption. The legislation would not require elimination of pesticides used for maintaining a safe drinking water supply, swimming pool treatments, etc. (For the complete proposed legislation, please see Appendix B.)

This type of legislation has been enacted in communities across the country. In the Capital Region, the Town of Bethlehem, the City of Albany, and Albany County have implemented a pesticide phase-out, with good results. Each jurisdiction created its own legislation and determined a good balance between toxin-free pest control and restricted use of pesticides (when deemed necessary), which is dependent on the characteristics of the region and the purposes for which past pesticides were used (i.e. golf courses, lawns, roach control, etc.). Once an adequate plan is in place, groundskeepers and other staff can learn to practice and maintain their responsibilities without applying pesticides.

Albany County has created a volunteer oversight committee to ensure smooth implementation of their phase-out program. Committee members include Albany County staff responsible for implementation, members of concerned non-profit groups such as the New York Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, and community members. When questions of alternatives arise, or a potential reason to apply pesticides is identified, this committee can work to find the alternatives or determine if pesticide application is truly warranted. This committee has been very useful in keeping the program on track and aids its success. Should Troy implement a pesticide phase-out program, it is strongly encouraged to create a similar oversight committee to ensure a successful program.

IV. Financial and Technical Assistance

One concern that has been raised among Council members is finances. While a switch from chemical pesticides to preventative measures could cost money or require increased staff time, there are some ways to defray or eliminate these additional costs. Funds are available from New York State to implement least-toxic pest control programs. This year there is $400,000 allocated in the budget, up from $250,000 last year. This money can be used to train staff, invest in infrastructure, etc.

Additionally, the Capital Region is full of sources of support and information. The New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) will be releasing a Resource Guide for communities that have passed laws phasing out pesticides. With the New York Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides located here, Troy staff people can find alternatives to any problem that arises. Also, since three other municipalities have already implemented programs of this nature and Rensselaer County is implementing Integrated Pest Management principles into its system, there are many sources to turn to for specific advice as the program progresses.

V. Conclusion

Not only is it right to phase out pesticides to protect people’s health and the environment, but the time is right. The City of Troy must take action now to demonstrate its leadership, to educate its residents, and to protect them. There are so many great things about the turn-around going on in Troy, shouldn’t this be one more?

Appendix A: Proposed City of Troy Pesticide Phaseout Ordinance

Section 1: Intent

The City of Troy finds and declares that pesticides are linked to a number of acute and chronic health problems and that it is therefore the policy of the City of Troy to phase out pesticide use by city government for many pest control purposes, and to adopt a pest control policy that substantially relies on non-chemical pest control strategies.

Section 2: Definitions

1. Anti-microbial means a pesticide as defined by 7 U.S.C. 126(mm).

2. Pest means (1) any insect, rodent, fungus, weed, or (2) any other form of terrestrial or aquatic or animal life or virus, bacterial, or other micro-organism (except viruses, bacteria or other micro-organisms on or in living man or other living animals) which the commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental of Environmental Conservation declares to be a pest.

3. Pesticide means any substance or mixture of substances intended for prevention, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest; and any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliator, or desiccant. It shall include all pesticide products registered as such by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and all products for which experimental use permits and provisional registrations have been granted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

Section 3: Phase One

Effective January 1, 2001 no city department or agency, or any pesticide applicator employed by the city as a contractor or subcontractor for pest control purposes, shall apply on city property any pesticide classified as Category 1 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or any pesticide classified as a known, likely, or probable human carcinogen by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, except as provided for in Section 6 of this ordinance.

Section 4: Phase Two

Effective January 1, 2002 no city department or agency, or any pesticide applicator employed by the city as a contractor or subcontractor for pest control purposes, shall apply on city property any pesticide classified as Toxicity Category II by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, any pesticide classified as a possible human carcinogen by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or any pesticide classified as restricted use by the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, except as provided in Section 6 of this ordinance.

Section 5: Phase Three

Effective January 1, 2003 no city department or any pesticide applicator employed by the city as a contractor or subcontractor for pest control purposes shall apply any pesticides on city property, except as provided in Section 6 of this ordinance.

Section 6: Exceptions

Not withstanding any other provisions, this ordinance shall not apply to the following:

a. pesticides otherwise lawfully used for the purpose of maintaining a safe drinking water treatment plants, wastewater treatment plants, reservoirs, and related collection, distribution, and treatment facilities;

b. anti-microbial pesticides;

c. pesticides in contained baits for the purpose of rodent control;

d. pesticides classified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as exempt materials under 40 CFR 152.25;

e. biological controls and biological pesticides, such as bacillus thuringiensis or milky spores, after review;

f. low-toxicity pesticides, such as boric acid, after review.

Section 7: Pest Management Plan

On or before December 30, 2000, the city shall adopt a pest management plan. Such plan shall take effect on December 30, 2000 and shall be consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. Such plan shall address pest population monitoring, least toxic pesticides for use prior to January 1, 2001, and non-chemical pest control strategies for use after such date, which will effectively manage pest problems in a comprehensive manner.

Section 8: Emergency Waiver

Should the city determine that a human health emergency warrants the use of pesticides that would otherwise not be allowed under this ordinance, it may apply for a single-use waiver from the municipal Board of Health. The Board of Health shall determine if such a waiver is warranted based on the following criteria:

a. the pest situation poses an immediate threat to human health; and

b. viable alternatives consistent with the ordinance do not exist (such a determination should be made in consultation with the Cornell Cooperative Extension Service Integrated Pest Management Program)

As a condition of approval, the Board of Health shall require a commitment from the city that the underlying causes of pest outbreak will be addressed in order to prevent future outbreaks.

Section 9: Effective Date

This ordinance shall become effective immediately on the thirtieth day after it shall finally have been adopted.

Frequently Asked Questions About Municipal Pesticide Use

Q: Are pesticides safe?

A: NO. It is illegal for manufacturers even to make that claim. Pesticides are neurotoxic (harm the nervous system) and many are suspected or probable carcinogens (cause cancer). Pesticides have also been linked to a host of other health problems, including infertility, birth defects and suppression of the immune system. Pesticides also frequently contaminate groundwater and surface water as well as harming wildlife and beneficial insects.

Q: Are non-chemical pest control techniques as effective?

A: YES. Non-chemical approaches are often more effective than chemical methods. The application of chemical pesticides addresses only the superficial symptoms of a larger problem. For example, pesticides used to kill weeds do not strengthen lawns to prevent further weed intrusion, just as they suppress ants without addressing the underlying structural problems that allow ants access to buildings. Non-toxic methods focus on prevention and making an environment naturally pest resistant.

Q: Is non-toxic pest control cost effective?

A: YES. Non-chemical pest control techniques are less expensive in the long run. Money spent in the initial set-up of non-chemical pest control is often earned back through reduced costs (no more expensive chemicals), decreased liability for potential lawsuits and decreases in potential fines for improper storage and disposal of hazardous materials. Government use of pesticides represents a needless waste of our tax dollars.

Q: What can be done at the local level?

A: LOTS. San Francisco recently enacted a phase out of pesticide use by the city government. Towns, counties and cities in New York State have been and should continue to follow suit. In the Capital District, the Town of Bethlehem, the County of Albany and the City of Albany have all begun to phase out chemical pesticides. A model ordinance has been prepared by statewide environmental groups that provides for a three-year phase-out of chemical pesticide use on municipal property.

Q: Why have local governments not banned all pesticide usage?

A: Unfortunately, current New York State Law preempts local governments in regulating the use of pesticides. However, local governments are well within their jurisdiction to eliminate their own municipal use of pesticides.

Q: How do I get started on this on this important issue?

A: Contact the Green City Project and support City Council legislation of a pesticide phase out for the City of Troy.

Summary of the Scientific Effects of Pesticides Used on the Frear Park Golf Course

Prepared by Green City Project

Source: Extension Toxicology Network: ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet

Note: Group B1& B2 implies a probable human carcinogen

Group C implies a possible human carcinogen

1) Iprodione – used in Chipco 26019 (a GUP – General Use Pesticide); Group B1 & B2 Carcinogen

• Appearance: colorless, odorless crystal

• Regulatory status: slightly toxic, CAUTION on product label

• Purpose: dicarboximide contact fungicide used to control crop diseases; inhibits the germination of spores and growth of a fungal mat

• Acute toxicity: slightly toxic by ingestion; low inhalation toxicity

• Chronic toxicity: low chronic toxicity effects

• Organ toxicity: target organs in animal studies include reproductive systems (prostate gland and uterus), liver, and kidneys

• Effects on ecology: slightly toxic to birds/wildfowl; moderately toxic to fish; nontoxic to bees

2) Chlorothalonil – used in Daconil 2787 (a GUP); Group B1 & B2 Carcinogen

• Appearance: aromatic halogen compound; grayish to colorless crystalline solid

• Regulatory status: moderately toxic (potential for eye irritation); DANGER on product label

• Purpose: organochlorine fungicide used to control fungus in agricultural crops and landscaping

• Acute toxicity: slightly toxic to mammals, causing severe eye and skin irritation; very high doses can cause a loss of muscle coordination, rapid breathing, nose bleeding, vomiting, hyperactivity, death; also dermatitis, vaginal bleeding, bright yellow/bloody urine, kidney tumors

• Chronic toxicity: generally no effects on physical appearance, behavior, or survival; skin contact causes dermatitis or light sensitivity; human eye and skin irritation and allergic skin responses

• Organ toxicity: toxic to kidney (decreased urine output, also kidney enlargement, discoloration, and development of small grains)

• Effects on ecology: practically nontoxic to birds; highly toxic to fish; nontoxic to bees

3) Triadimefon – used in Bayleton (92.6%) (a GUP); Unquantified Group C Carcinogen

• Appearance: colorless crystals

• Regulatory status: moderately toxic, WARNING on product label

• Purpose: systematic fungicide in triazole family; controls fungal pests on crops and landscaping; available in wettable powder, granular, paste, and emulsifiable concentrate forms

• Acute toxicity: low toxicity with skin exposure; potential to induce neurobehavioral effects; data regarding eye and skin irritation are inconclusive; moderate inhalation toxicity

• Chronic toxicity: toxic responses to low and moderate doses; reduction in body weight, increased liver weights, changes in red blood cell counts and blood cholesterol levels in animals

• Organ toxicity: associated with changes in the liver, decreased kidney weights, altered urinary bladder structure, also acute effects on central nervous system

• Effects on ecology: slightly toxic to practically nontoxic to birds; slightly toxic to fish; nontoxic to honeybees

Important Facts About Golf Course Pesticide Use

Points of interest/quotes:

• As much as 9 million pounds of pesticides are used every year on the nation’s 15,700 golf courses

• About 6.5 pounds of pesticides are applied per acre of U.S. golf courses each year (compared to 1.5 pounds per acre of agricultural lands)

• The most common pesticides used include the herbicide 2,4-D (possible carcinogen), the fungicide chlorothalonil (probable carcinogen), and insecticide chlorpyrifos (acute poison)

• 3% of dislodgeable turf residues that were sprayed on grass were later found in carpet dust

• Colorado’s Applewood Golf Course, owned by the Coors Brewing Company, has not used any pesticides since 1989; Coors was concerned because the water for their beer comes from the aquifer directly below the golf course

• Golf courses rank 4th in terms of the number of ecological incidents associated with pesticides reported to the EPA

• The U.S. Ladies Pro Golf Association offers free mammograms to its members because of a marked increase in breast cancer among women professional golfers

• The total amount of chemicals used on golf courses far exceeds what is used on cropland, according to a 1990 study of pesticide use on 52 Long Island golf courses.

• Golf courses occupy an estimated 1.5 million acres of land in the U.S.

• “Golf courses use a soup of chemicals, and there’s no way those chemicals are going to stay put.”- Maureen Hinkle, director of agricultural policy for the National Audubon Society in Washington D.C.

Programs:

1. Community & Environmental Defense Associates – CEDA releases a publication entitled, “Protecting the Aquatic Environment form the Effects of Golf Courses.” The publication discusses many different measures that can be taken to minimize water quality impacts. Alternative methods to pesticides as well as better and safer application methods are discussed in the report.

2. Educating maintenance personnel in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a start in eliminating contamination of surface and ground water from pesticides but cannot do so alone (IPM should be a part of each golf course’s environmental strategy). The idea is to reduce pest populations while keeping pesticide use to a minimum. IPM includes:

• Inspection and monitoring

• Proper cultural control methods

• Biological controls

• Using adapted species and resistant cultivars

• Practicing proper sanitation measures to prevent the spread of disease

• The use of most appropriate pesticide when necessary

3. Golf course superintendent Dan Dinelli from the North Shore Country Club has used IPM methods for 20 years. The following are some of his techniques:

• Healthy, growing turf is the best defense against pest problems

• Golfers can help by wearing spikeless shoes, which promote smoother putting surfaces with less wear and desiccation around the cups; this improved putting surface allows mowing heights to be raised, which are correlated with fewer pest problems

• Regular scouting and monitoring should take place, as well as education for golfers and grounds crews

• Insect pest trapping can be used, using pheromone traps or black light traps; traps can also indicate the population growth of a species, information indicating that additional methods must be implemented to keep the species under control (for example, when a high number of cutworm moths are caught, collecting and disposing of grass clippings (removing the eggs) can dramatically reduce the population)

• Spot treatment with a hand-sprayer can be used on individual burrows or nests

• Mowing in the morning can remove excess water, which promotes better playing conditions and hinders disease development

• Slow-release organic fertilizers help to keep the grass healthy; examples are products derived from activated sewage sludge and meat meal

• Compost, fertilizer, and disease suppressant, when used together, help the turf to withstand stress and disease; this in turn allows a dense stand of grass and better playing conditions

• Pesticides are expensive, and costs are driven up from extensive testing required by the EPA

• Purchase costs do not include clean-up and disposal costs, long-term ecosystem damage, and incidental damage due to drift and contamination

-----------------------

[1] substance used to prevent or destroy a fungus. Made from sulfur or copper compounds, organic salts of iron, zinc, and mercury, or other chemicals, fungicides are used on seeds, soil, wood (to prevent dry rot), and fabrics (to prevent mildew).

( This company has not been evaluated for its performance or the level to which it advocates least-toxic alternatives. It is provided as an example of possibilities available, not as a recommendation of Citizens for a Pesticide Free Troy.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download