Students from an Ohio middle school were evacuated earlier this month when chemical weed killers were applied to nearby fields. Ironically, the children were evacuated to a site near the sprayed fields that made at least 47 children ill (GANNETT PHOTO).

When I arrived home today after another whirlwind week on the road, the in-box was abuzz with news of a a tragic event in Ohio that poisoned 47 young schoolchildren. Six were hospitalized and lawyers for a slew of parents are circling the wagons in the midst of the incident that occurred back on Oct. 11.

I’m not quite sure how it slipped under our radar until now, but anytime children wind up sick after an application of a chemical designed to kill dandelions, an enduring question must be asked: “How the hell can we keep allowing these products anywhere near our kids?”

The story in Ohio, chronicled in local papers (http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/chemical-spray-spurs-middle-school-evacuation-students-taken-to-hospital-1267163.html), was apparently brought on by a set of atmospheric and wind conditions that caused the weed-killer known as Momentum (containing 2,4-D and two other toxic ingredients) to drift directly into the school while windows were open. By the time the first student alerted an adult to the smell, 46 others were already sick with nausea, blurred vision, headaches and dizziness — which is exactly what the material safety data sheet (MSDS) says can happen.

The reality is that this sort of affliction happens EVERY SINGLE DAY, SEVERAL THOUSANDS TIMES A DAY somewhere in the United States — but because it doesn’t happen to a group of children all at once, it doesn’t make the news. Say, for instance, that your neighbor is applying weed killers to his or her lawn and your child breathes it in. He or she gets a tummy ache, or a headache, and you, as a parent, have no idea why your child is sick. It’s probably your neighbor’s lawn chemicals.

There was no indication that the pesticide company did anything illegal in this case, or applied too much material. Maybe the company should have told the school to close the windows; maybe the company could have applied the material when the 820 students weren’t in school and these 47 kids wouldn’t have gotten sick.

But the main point here is that day to day to day across the U.S. these products are applied by professionals and homeowners; kids breath them in and kids get sick. In this Ohio incident 6 percent of the 820 students were made ill; isn’t that 6 percent too many?

Some scientific reports estimate that 1 in 6 children get sick from even incidental exposure to pesticides. It’s just not reasonable to shut every window and keep every child in the neighborhood inside when lawns are being treated; the only reasonable thing to do is to ban the products like they’ve done in Canada.

I can’t say I’m happy this event happened; if my student were in that school, I’d be justifiably irate just as I’m sure many of the parents were.

But if there’s a silver lining, it’s that this event NEEDS TO BE USED AS EVIDENCE that lawn chemicals to kill weeds and insects have no place on our parks and playgrounds, our playing fields and even our own back yards. More than 80 percent of the nation in Canada has already made this decision — chemicals used for cosmetic purposes of killing weeds are illegal — and it’s time for the United States to follow suit.

We need to take the Child Safe Playing Fields Act in New York and, at a minimum, make it national legislation. Call your state and nationally elected officials and tell them you don’t want lawn chemicals anywhere near your children. Send them a link to this story; make your voice heard!

For further evidence, turn to Highland Park, Ill., where 25 emails and 600-plus signatures on a petition caught the attention of local officials who ultimately delayed a plan to spray public parks with synthetic weed killers: http://highlandpark.suntimes.com/news/7810266-418/park-district-backs-off-pesticide-use.html.

The issue in the community was that, after voting to go “organic” on the parks three years ago, the fields started producing more dandelions and other “weeds” than folks wanted to see. The only alternative, the leaders concluded, was to resort to pesticides. The planned reversion was trumpeted internationally as a rare victory for the chemical industry in this anti-pesticide movement that is sweeping North America.

The shills for the chemical industry say, “See, organics doesn’t work.”

The real answer, always, is that the local folks probably don’t know how organics work. You can’t just dump on organic fertilizer instead of chemical fertilizer, do nothing else, and expect weeds NOT to grow. The presence of weeds indicates that the soil wants to grow weeds and should tell the grounds crew that additional soil amendments are needed to help keep the population under control.

It’s simple, in other words . . . but it’s not. Organic landscape control does require some thinking, some evaluation and, in some cases, some work. Some municipalities I’ve seen even with limited budgets even have community weed-pulling days, either for lawn weeds or for tougher exotic invasive weeds that are filling our roadsides across North America.

The bottom line is that there are plenty of solutions for dealing with weeds without the toxins.

Congratulations to Highland Park for taking the right first step.

Folks there have called us to say the organic battle has certainly not been won, but with this kind of resolve human and environmental safety at least has a fighting chance of succeeding.

The 1967 Masters golf tournament, won by Gay Brewer, right, was the first time the Augusta National Country Club appeared in full color on television.

Did you know the lawn chemical industry can be traced to the second weekend of April of 1967? That’s the weekend the “Augusta Syndrome” was born, causing grown men across the U.S. to covet perfectly manicured green lawns of their own. The picture, at left, shows a young Jack Nicklaus fitting Gay Brewer with his green jacket after Brewer won the tournament that had been broadcast live and in color for the first time.

Detailing the efforts of a town to ban synthetic weed killers on town property, this article appeared with that golf tidbit in the lead on Thursday in the Forecaster, a Maine newspaper, incidently, where I began my career as a gardening columnist nearly 20 years ago:
http://www.theforecaster.net/content/s-scarborough-pesticides-policy-090211. The town of Scarborough, Maine, plans to screen the film, A Chemical Reaction on Sept. 14 at 6:30 p.m. at the Scarborough Public Library. The film tells the story of Hudson, Quebec, that became the first town in North America to ban pesticides 20 years ago.

Until dry? . . .

or 24 hours? . . .

or 72 hours? The same product, 2,4-D, was applied in each case, yet the laws across the United States are terribly ambiguous.

The same debate we’ve seen unfold in at least a half dozen other states in the past two years is grabbing headlines in Colorado. On one side a group of concerned parents thinks lawn pesticides are dangerous; on the other, a group of lawn care professionals who claim the products are safe when used as directed.

“Those chemicals aren’t toxic unless you use them inappropriately . . .” was a well-worn statement from a woman representing the lawn chemical industry. She was quoted in this article in a Denver newspaper: http://www.ednewscolorado.org/2011/06/27/20750-parents-urge-dps-to-end-herbicide-use.

That statement in itself is blatantly false. The products — which always say KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN on the bag — are ALWAYS toxic. That’s why the warning labels are in place.

The real issue is reasonable risk. In other words, are the children at the school at risk after Trugreen applies the products, even if the wind conditions are low and the company is doing everything the law says it must?

In Canada, as we celebrated yesterday, that answer is no. School spraying should be off-limits everywhere in the U.S., too, just as it is in New York and Connecticut. The products are dangerous everywhere; the laws should be the same from Maine to California.

Just yesterday I noticed a neighbor’s lawn had been sprayed with 2,4-D here in Rhode Island and the posted sign warned to stay off the grass for 72 hours. Yet in some states, after spraying 2,4-D, the only requirement is to stay off the grass until the product dries, which can be a matter of minutes on a warm, breezy day.

So which is it? Safe after 72 hours, or safe after a few minutes?

These are our children we’re talking about. We really shouldn’t be guessing.

Search on-line on one of those this-day-in-history lists and you won’t find my nomination for the MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT’S EVER HAPPENED on the 179th day of the year (not counting leap years).

All sorts of other important stuff shares a June 28 anniversary. I didn’t know, for example, that Labor Day became a federal holiday by an act of Congress on this day in 1894, and I didn’t remember that on June 28, 1914, that Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary was assassinated with his wife, thereby setting off World War I.

Let’s see . . . we had the Treaty of Versailles signed in France, ending World War I, on June 28, 1919, and the Citadel, that military bastion of the South, finally admitting women through its corridors, on this day in 1996.

Other ignominious events have since followed on the third from the last day of the sixth month. In 1997, boxer Mike Tyson bit off part of Evander Holyfield’s ear during their heavyweight title fight, and in 2000 the little Cuban boy, Elian Gonzalez, was returned to his father in Cuba. Remember Elian? He’ll be 18 in December.

On this day in the following year, however, an event occurred that should be on those lists. Sure, it’s great to end World Wars and break down gender inequalities, and I’m a big fan of Labor Day barbecues with friends and family. But a day that allowed 30 million people to begin to live free from pesticides ought to get a mention from the pop-culture historians.

Justice Dube

Just before noontime on June 28, 2001, in the remarkably cozy chambers in Ottawa, Ontario, Supreme Court Justice Claire L’Heureux Dube read aloud the basis for her unanimous 9-0 opinion in the David vs. Goliath case of Chemlawn and Spraytech v. Hudson. Her words were simple, yet far reaching. They looked back, yet forward. They returned a basic human right, self government, to the people. They sent a billion dollar company, ChemLawn, into a name change (TruGreen) and a tailspin that continues to this day. And Madame Dube didn’t do it to be vindictive, or to put a company out of business. She wrote her words to protect children, hers, yours, mine. Everyone’s.

“The context of this appeal includes the realization that our common future, that of every Canadian community, depends on a healthy environment. In the words of the Superior Court judge: ‘Twenty years ago, there was very little concern over the effect of chemicals such as pesticides on the population. Today, we are more conscious of what type of an environment we wish to live in, and what quality of life we wish to expose our children [to]” This Court has recognized that everyone is aware that individually and collectively, we are responsible for preserving the natural environment . . . environmental protection [has] emerged as a fundamental value in Canadian society.”

Justice Dube went on to invoke, for the first time in legal history in the world, the Precautionary Principle — which is the notion that you don’t need absolute proof of harm in every instance before you take action to protect people or the environment. In her view, putting down lawn pesticides for the aesthetic purpose of killing dandelions or clover was not a good enough reason to bear the risks associated with those pesticides.

In giving the town of Hudson the right to ban pesticides from its public and private properties, the Canadian Supreme Court set off the ultimate domino effect. Town by town, province by province, the pesticide bans for cosmetic purposes have swept across the nation to our north. The latest figures show that 80 percent of the population is now protected from weed-killing products like 2,4-D (a major component of Agent Orange) or Roundup (also known to cause birth defects).

Because of the Hudson case, decided 10 years ago today, giant retailer Home Depot stopped selling weed ‘n feed and other synthetic chemical gardening pesticide products in its stores across Canada.

And, yet, Home Depot still sells all those same products in the United States. I once visited the Atlanta, Georgia, headquarters to ask the men in charge of making such decisions about what was going on in Canada. Most of the vice presidents didn’t even know that their northern counterparts couldn’t sell Miracle Gro laced with nerve toxins that double as weed killers. A more senior in-the-know official of the company offered a more candid response:

“In Canada, people didn’t want to buy those products anymore for the most part because of all the negative publicity associated with pesticides,” he said. “Here, in the United States, people still want to buy them. So we’ll keep selling them. Next question?”

And, so, 10 years after what those of us in the pesticide movement know to be the most significant legal decision in environmental history, most folks in the United States remain blissfully unaware that Miracle Gro and Turf Builder Plus 2 are even a problem. Sure, we’re making gains. New York and Connecticut have banned pesticide applications on school grounds. More than 30 New Jersey towns have banned pesticides on public parks.

In the age of the Internet, tens of thousands of people can ban together to keep ChemLawn from sponsoring Earth Day. That was a victory.

But today, June 28, on the most important day in pesticide history, millions more people remember a little Cuban boy and a chewed off ear.

That needs to change.

If you zoom in closely, you'll see Peter's Sierra Club button from the late '60s.

As a fan of the little town of Hudson taking Big Chemical to the Supreme Court of Canada, and winning with a precedent-setting decision, I find it unconscionable that the Toronto flower show known as Canada Blooms has given in to Big Chemical by banning the film
Hudson: A Chemical Reaction.

We Canadians, once upon a time, used to live in a Civil Society. Now, we have Big Oil, Big Banking and Big Chemical running our media and our Parliament. This is just another disgusting example of big business assuming that they have the right to think for us.

My children were patients of the courageous MD, Dr. June Irwin, who is portrayed in the film. One of my brothers is one of the 15 percent of North Americans who is hypersensitive to pesticides. His throat would close if he ate from a salad bar where there were pesticide residues on the greens. When Dr. Irwin began her educational crusade after seeing so many children like my brother, I was quoted in a Quebec newspaper saying, “My brother and other persons like him are the canaries in the coal mines for the rest of Canadian society.”

Today, courageous scientists like Mel Visser, Author of the book Cold Clear & Deadly are the (insiders) who are doing their best to save us from ourselves as we are overtaken by endocrine disruption and immune system deficiencies which cost our heath care system billions.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it does indeed toll for us!