You Are Here: Home » Blog » Pesticide Toxicity » Why Ban Lawn Pesticides? Let Us Count the Reasons . . .

Why Ban Lawn Pesticides? Let Us Count the Reasons . . .

Note: At the conclusion of testimony in favor of the New Hampshire bill to study the potential impact of a ban on certain pesticides, several state representatives contacted SafeLawns for clarification on several points. This is a summary of what we submitted (much of this material has been covered previously in this blog):

IN SUPPORT OF HB 1456
TALKING POINTS

LAWNS AND SAFETY

Many of the pesticide applicators at the hearing spoke about EPA approval of their products, suggesting that such approval by the Environmental Protection Agency was proof that their pesticides are safe when used as directed. The reality is that EPA approval is NOT a finding of absolute safety, but rather it is a risk-benefit analysis of health and environmental risks weighed against economic benefits. In most cases, those risks and benefits are borne by differing members of society. In other words, the chemical companies and applicators get the money and the homeowners, ponds, lakes, rivers, oceans etc. bear the risks.

LAWNS AND HEALTH

17 of 32 (53%) of the most commonly registered and utilized lawn pesticide products in New Hampshire include ingredients that are likely carcinogens, as defined by the EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

13 of 32 (41%) of the approved lawn pesticide products include ingredients that are banned or restricted in other countries due to their health and environmental impacts.

According to the Material Safety Data Sheets of the most commonly used lawn pesticides, the products can cause irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat; burning, stinging, itches, rashes, and blistering of the skin; nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea; and coughing, wheezing, headache, and general malaise. Because these symptoms are similar or identical to those caused by other illnesses, acute pesticide poisoning is often misdiagnosed.

Pesticide exposure occurs through numerous pathways, including the skin, eyes, ears, nose and mouth — all areas where children are particularly sensitive.

The National Academy of Sciences estimates that one in 7 adults suffers acute symptoms of pesticide poisoning (such as those symptoms listed above) — most of which are not diagnosed.

Exposure to pesticides are also linked with chronic illness, such as cancer, behavioral impairment, reproductive dysfunction, endocrine disruption, developmental disabilities, ADHD, Autism, Parkinson’s Syndrome, learning disabilities, skin conditions, and respiratory diseases such as asthma.

A National Cancer Institute study states that, “although research is underway to characterize the risks of childhood cancer associated with pesticides and identify the specific pesticides responsible, it is prudent to reduce or, where possible, eliminate pesticide exposure to children, given their increased vulnerability and susceptibility. In particular, efforts should be focused to reduce exposure to pesticides used in homes and gardens and on lawns and public lands, which are major sources of exposure for most children.

A number of studies have linked lawn pesticides to childhood illnesses:
a) A University of Southern California study showed that children whose parents used garden pesticides were 6.5 times more likely to develop leukemia.
b) According to EPA’s Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, children receive 50 percent of their lifetime cancer risks in the first two years of life.
c) Children with brain cancer are more likely to have been exposed to insecticides in the home.
d) Children in families that use professional pest control services are at higher risk of developing leukemia than children in families that don’t use pesticides.
e) A 1990 study by the US Congress Office of Technology Assessment concluded that “in general, [human health] research demonstrates that pesticide poisoning can lead to poor performance on tests including intellectual functioning, academic skills, abstraction, flexibility of thought, and motor skills; memory disturbances and inability to focus attention; deficits in intelligence, reaction time, and manual dexterity; and reduced perceptual speed. Increased anxiety and emotional problems have also been reported.”

A US EPA study found that residues from outdoor pesticides are tracked in by pets and people’s shoes, and can increase the pesticide loads in carpet dust as much as 400-fold. These pesticides, intended for outdoor use, will persist for years indoors because they are sheltered from sun, rain and other forces that can degrade them. Another study, published in November 2003 by the Silent Spring Institute, which was funded by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, showed that residents may be continuously exposed to dangerous levels of pesticides in their home decades after application.

Recently, an “inert” ingredient in the most common lawn pesticide product known as Roundup was found to kill human cells. The French government sued the manufacturer of Roundup for making improper safety claims about Roundup.

LAWN TRENDS

Canada has announced it will ban weed ’n feed nationwide by the end of 2012. This ban was seen as a compromise between Health Canada and the pesticide industry, which agreed that weed ’n feed products put excess amounts of pesticides in the environment.

More than 60 percent of Canada has banned “cosmetic” herbicides used to kill dandelions, clover etc. on lawns. Most major Canadian retailers including Home Depot have stopped selling herbicides and have committed to selling alternatives.

The state of Connecticut banned the applications of lawn pesticides around schools and daycare centers in 2005 (Bill SB 916).

More than 35 municipalities in New Jersey have enacted bans of synthetic lawn pesticides on public property.

In its 9-0 landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Canada invoked “The Precautionary Principle” with regard to pesticides. The Precautionary Principles means that, even in situations where there is not absolute proof of harm in all cases, precaution should be taken to protect the environment and human health.

The National Gardening Association data shows that 10 percent of consumers are currently utilizing exclusively organic products; that total is expected to grow to 50 percent of the marketplace by 2013.

ORGANIC ALTERNATIVES

The efficacy of organic products has increased dramatically in the past five years; several new organic products have entered the market in just the past three years, including a natural “selective” herbicide that can replace the most toxic chemicals.

Canadian landscapes that have been grown without pesticides for years are still beautiful. Mayors and town managers have reported a reduction in costs for mowing, watering, fertilizing and pesticide applications.

LAWNS AND THE ENVIRONMENT

All 32 of the most common lawn pesticide products include ingredients that pose threats to the environment, including: threats to water supplies, birds, fish, other aquatic organisms, and non-targeted insects.

The National Academy of Sciences estimates that homeowners utilize 10 times the amount of fertilizer and pesticides per acre of lawn and landscape than do farmers.

In 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency completed a nationwide survey of pesticides in wells that provide drinking water. It showed that more than half of the 94,000 community water system wells and rural wells tested contained nitrates from fertilizer. Nearly 15 percent of residential wells contained lawn pesticides.

The EPA estimates that only 2 percent of pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides) actually reach the target pest; the remainder volatizes in the air, or drifts to unintended targets, or seeps into groundwater, or washes into surface water (A Cornell University study led by Dr. David Pimentel concluded the figure is 99.5 percent of pesticides do not hit the target pest when applied).

The chemical mostly commonly used for grub control in lawns, known as imidacloprid, has been blamed for Colony Collapse Disorder in bees in France, Germany, Israel and many other nations. Many scientists and beekeepers in the U.S. have now reached the same conclusion.

NOTEWORTHY

The New York Board of Pesticide Control estimates that 8 of 10 homeowners do NOT fully read the label on pesticide containers.

New Hampshire has just one person in charge of registering all categories of pesticides (thousands) in the state.

New Hampshire has just two people policing 1,800 licensed pesticide applicators across the state.

No one outside of the pesticide industry spoke against the New Hampshire study — no homeowners, no doctors etc.

Dozens of health care organizations, including the Canadian Cancer Society, the Ontario College of Family Physicans and the Canadian Association of Physcians for the Environment, all endorse the Canadian bans on lawn pesticides.

About The Author

Paul Tukey

An international leader of the green movement, Mr. Tukey is a journalist, author, filmmaker, TV host, activist and award-winning public speaker, who is widely recognized as North America's leading advocate for landscape sustainability and toxic pesticide reduction strategies.

Number of Entries : 1023
  • http://n/a K. Jean Cottam, PhD

    Twenty-three various prominent individuals in Ontario and the Ontario Minister of the Environment himself are currently subjected to a horrendously vicious campaign by the die-hard elements of the Ontario lawn-care industry. In a few days it will be determined whether their lawsuit will be allowed to proceed.

  • thelawnguy

    OK, so I drove up from Boston and snuck into your movie in Concord with my hat pulled low over my eyes and I gotta tell you, you convinced me. I’ve been a lawn sprayer for years and years, but I feel worse and worse every year both physically and mentally. I just don’t think the customers, most of them anyway, are ready to make this switch . . . either economically or in appearance. In the meantime, I have to feed my family. So has awful as I feel about it, I think I need to keep up the spraying for another year or two.

    You probably know this already, but a bunch of my friends hate your guts for speaking out like this.

    • Alyssa Owens

      No jobs will be lost; lawns can continue to look good. How could anyone choose business as usual over avoiding the health risks?!

  • It’s Only Natural Landscaping

    “I just don’t think the customers, most of them anyway, are ready to make this switch”

    I could not disagree more. We’ve got overwhelming demand here in Pittsburgh. If the option is there – most will take it.

    It is impossible to make a legit argument for the continued usage of lawn pesticides.

    • Alyssa Owens

      Make the public aware… Provide them with current information about the health risks and the environmental risks. I guess you need to talk about things they understand; their gardens will suffer from lack of bees, birds and bats for pollination. When the lawn care industry sees that people want the safer alternative, they will be more supportive and they will still have jobs in that industry.

  • Paul Tukey

    We should have had you testify in New Hampshire last week. At least a dozen lawn care guys spoke about how their businesses would suffer tremendously if they couldn’t use pesticides.

  • Alyssa Owens

    Many like to complain about too much government. This rational doesn’t hold up when we examine the nature of what the lawn chemical manufacturers are doing to our society. They are the ones with inordinate power… They are destroying us with their untested creations and we are their humble, sickly servants. By supporting the producers of these products, we make them richer to the detriment of our health and the health of our environment. We do not need these products for nice grass. The lawn care industry will not disappear without 2,4-D and MCPP and Dicamba… Rather, it will flourish with more natural and safer methods.

  • Pingback: New Hampshire Pesticide Study Bill Passes! | Safelawns Daily Post and Q&A Blog

  • Katrina

    Agreed. We must elect green politicians, who are incorruptible on certain environmental issues.  That’s the only way. Forget the conventional liberals-Democrats.  Obama has packed his admin with former Monsanto Execs, who will take their newfound gov’t “access” and go right back to Monsanto (and command higher paychecks for the new power they wield) after their terms are up.  They’ll use that power to further consolidate their control over various arms of the adminstration (e.g. the Dept of Ag, USDA, EPA) and ram through ever more favorable legislation so that they can peddle whatever poison wares they want.

    It’s called the revolving door of gov’t & business. And Obama either doesn’t realize how pernicious this system is, or he doesn’t care. Probably both.

Scroll to top